RE: AI for MWiF - USA (Full Version)

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



Message

npilgaard -> RE: AI for MWiF - USA (12/4/2008 5:03:29 PM)

The US player in the (ftf) game I am currently participating in has given building a decent lot of ATR/PARAs for use in the Pacific a try.
Usually I build such units for Europe mostly, as it seems easier to just to invasions in the Pacific (longer range and often lots of naval movement anyway), but the ATR-approach has at least one advantage, I think: island-hopping can be done during land impulses. So even when engaged in Europe and having a hard time squeezing in a combined/naval impulse some advancement on undefended ports/islands etc. (not the big ones of course) can be done.
Often the US ends up doing many combined impulses (in spite of the US player having promised himself beforehand not to fall into that trap - again... [:)] ), and maybe that can be somewhat cut down if using a few ATRs. Without ATR and if (to some extend) avoiding combined impulses, then the Japanese will get a chance to react when the invasion forces are sailed to a sea area during a naval impulse, in order to invade the following land impulse.

As mentioned I haven't tried focusing on ATRs in the Pacific (or seen it done in a game before), but it might be a worthwhile step to give a try from time to time.



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: AI for MWiF - USA (12/4/2008 6:35:31 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: npilgaard

The US player in the (ftf) game I am currently participating in has given building a decent lot of ATR/PARAs for use in the Pacific a try.
Usually I build such units for Europe mostly, as it seems easier to just to invasions in the Pacific (longer range and often lots of naval movement anyway), but the ATR-approach has at least one advantage, I think: island-hopping can be done during land impulses. So even when engaged in Europe and having a hard time squeezing in a combined/naval impulse some advancement on undefended ports/islands etc. (not the big ones of course) can be done.
Often the US ends up doing many combined impulses (in spite of the US player having promised himself beforehand not to fall into that trap - again... [:)] ), and maybe that can be somewhat cut down if using a few ATRs. Without ATR and if (to some extend) avoiding combined impulses, then the Japanese will get a chance to react when the invasion forces are sailed to a sea area during a naval impulse, in order to invade the following land impulse.

As mentioned I haven't tried focusing on ATRs in the Pacific (or seen it done in a game before), but it might be a worthwhile step to give a try from time to time.


This would seem to have broader application, and usable in Europe and the Med at times too (e.g., Germnay's historical invasion of Crete).



brian brian -> RE: AI for MWiF - USA (12/4/2008 9:14:24 PM)

Interesting. Would go hand in hand with the CW Air / US Land strategy in Europe too, though the US has longer range ATRs than the British do. One of the best Japanese defense tactics, in my mind, is to have a counter-invasion force ready at all times from 42 onwards. So if you drop PARAs into a sea zone without a USN presence, especially ones that just flipped attacking an undefended hex due solely to expending too many movement points (easy to to in the Pacific), they might be a little vulnerable to an IJN riposte. One of the best US investments for their oodles of BPs is to spend an Offensive Chit once per turn on a SuperCombined impulse to get around some of the action limit problems mentioned. Without that, they need at least one naval impulse per turn just to move units out to the combat theaters anyway. And I haven't had too many problems with the standard Naval/Land combo over two impulses, except when weather in the landing zone becomes an issue and sometimes you have to make hay while the sun shines. True, the IJN can come out and take a swing at USMC forces afloat prior to landing, but you kind of want the Japanese to come out and fight sooner rather than later. The USA is like that Doritos commercial with their units - "Don't worry, we'll make more."

I call that tactic in Europe the 1st Allied Parachute Army, a WiF Fantasy unit if there ever was one, but it can be effective for the Allies.



Sewerlobster -> RE: AI for MWiF - USA (12/4/2008 9:41:01 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: npilgaard
Often the US ends up doing many combined impulses (in spite of the US player having promised himself beforehand not to fall into that trap - again... [:)] )


LOL
Oh -- we've all been there.



Froonp -> RE: AI for MWiF - USA (12/4/2008 9:49:47 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: npilgaard
The US player in the (ftf) game I am currently participating in has given building a decent lot of ATR/PARAs for use in the Pacific a try.

I also like to have at least 1 PARA & 1 ATR in the Pacific, when I already have 2 PARA + 1 DIV in Europe, to add an extra threat for the Japanese to think about. That's not "focusing" on PARA in the Pacific, but I agree they are usefull there too.



composer99 -> RE: AI for MWiF - USA (12/5/2008 5:10:59 PM)

The US has a 20-range ATR (something like that) that can paradrop; it's a handy piece of hardware for the Pacific. The "mere" 15-range ATRs (or CW/Fr ones) can be used in Europe.

The other thing is that the US is probably the only Allied MP likely to have & use paratroops in the Pacific (the Chinese might do so in China/Formosa, of course) whereas the CW and Free France will probably have them available for use in Europe. So if you want a paradrop threat in the Pacific, the US is the one who will have to supply it.



Gurggulk -> RE: AI for MWiF - USA (7/10/2009 4:56:41 AM)


USA Naval and convoy Deployment, using Limited overseas supply or not.

5 convoys each in, West Coast, Mendocino, Hawaiian Islands, Central Pacific, for trade route to Japan.
3 convoys in Caribbean Sea for 3 oil from Venezuela
1 convoy each in West coast and Gulf of Alaska for the oil Resource
2 convoy points in reserve, placed in Honolulu

East Coast Fleet and 2 Transports in Norfork
West Coast Fleet and 2 Transports in San Diego
Submarines in Seattle.

Do you want a Free Setup for the USA also?

Are the Islands of Attu and Kiska named for historical reference on the game map?



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: AI for MWiF - USA (7/10/2009 5:03:52 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gurggulk


USA Naval and convoy Deployment, using Limited overseas supply or not.

5 convoys each in, West Coast, Mendocino, Hawaiian Islands, Central Pacific, for trade route to Japan.
3 convoys in Caribbean Sea for 3 oil from Venezuela
1 convoy each in West coast and Gulf of Alaska for the oil Resource
2 convoy points in reserve, placed in Honolulu

East Coast Fleet and 2 Transports in Norfork
West Coast Fleet and 2 Transports in San Diego
Submarines in Seattle.

Do you want a Free Setup for the USA also?

Are the Islands of Attu and Kiska named for historical reference on the game map?

If you are referring to CWIF's Free Setup, then no. The optional rule has been removed from MWIF. There are just too many setup restrictions and removing them all changes the game too much. Choosing which restircitions to keep and which to remove was too much bother for a marginal benefit.

Here's the Aleutian island chain.

[image]local://upfiles/16701/6E6C038873944BB58F816F0AEA03F5F5.jpg[/image]



Gurggulk -> RE: AI for MWiF - USA (7/10/2009 5:14:17 AM)

What a very nice screenshot of the Aleutian islands chain. Thanks! [:)] Im happy to see all the islands named.

No Free setup is cool.



composer99 -> RE: AI for MWiF - USA (7/10/2009 3:53:43 PM)

For USA initially I think it is better to have all transports on Pacific side. The US doesn't need sealift on the Atlantic seaboard until they have units ready to go to Europe and are 1-2 turns away from entering war vs. Germany/Italy. By contrast it is a simple affair to load up Hawaii, Dutch Harbour & Pago Pago with garrisons early on.



Gurggulk -> RE: AI for MWiF - USA (7/10/2009 7:11:49 PM)

Placing all transports on the west coast is perfectly acceptable.
My deployment suggestion has a symmetry that balances the east and west coast fleets. [:)] Which made me happy.

So we could have Option B

East Coast Fleet in Norfork
West Coast Fleet and 4 Transports in San Diego
Submarines in Seattle.




brian brian -> RE: AI for MWiF - USA (7/11/2009 1:53:51 AM)

I like putting CPs out from Hawaii to Manila to get that resource back to the USA as soon as possible when new CPs start to arrive first in Mar/Apr 40 and then in May/Jun 40 the chain can be completed....or possibly extended to Hanoi or Rangoon to goad the Japanese into closing the Burma Road and rolling for a USE Chit.



paulderynck -> RE: AI for MWiF - USA (7/11/2009 4:23:49 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: composer99

For USA initially I think it is better to have all transports on Pacific side. The US doesn't need sealift on the Atlantic seaboard until they have units ready to go to Europe and are 1-2 turns away from entering war vs. Germany/Italy. By contrast it is a simple affair to load up Hawaii, Dutch Harbour & Pago Pago with garrisons early on.

Definitely. All TRS and Amph should be built up to war and I usually have only 4 late arrivals going to Europe. Even the 3-3 TRSs are invaluable in the Pacific to re-org new carriers as they come out from the West Coast.



Orm -> RE: AI for MWiF - USA (7/11/2009 9:46:39 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gurggulk

Placing all transports on the west coast is perfectly acceptable.
My deployment suggestion has a symmetry that balances the east and west coast fleets. [:)] Which made me happy.

So we could have Option B

East Coast Fleet in Norfork
West Coast Fleet and 4 Transports in San Diego
Submarines in Seattle.




Some transports is often needed at the East Coast when USA enters the war. US can at times enter the war fast and a some transports on the East Coast could save UK from beeing conquered.

At times I even send fast TRS with units from the East Coast to India. It is a 2 turn transfer, but it is as fast as the Pacific route to India, and it is a safer route to India. Much safer than to try and send them past the Japanese navy to India from the West Coast.



brian brian -> RE: AI for MWiF - USA (7/11/2009 3:29:49 PM)

upon DoW, it's also fun to send them on high-risk runs to the Philippines or other Allied ports the Japanese weren't able to occupy on the DoW impulse. I can hear it now "but they'll get killed by the Japanese". True, especially if use of the oil rule leaves them disorganized at the destination. but a reinforcement delivery (of the white-print units you had holding a Pearl Harbor not now under direct threat from the Imperial Guard) like that can seriously wreck the Japanese timetable by an extra turn or two, and that is what the game is all about.



Froonp -> RE: AI for MWiF - USA (7/11/2009 9:59:29 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gurggulk

Placing all transports on the west coast is perfectly acceptable.
My deployment suggestion has a symmetry that balances the east and west coast fleets. [:)] Which made me happy.

So we could have Option B

East Coast Fleet in Norfork
West Coast Fleet and 4 Transports in San Diego
Submarines in Seattle.



San Diego is a better place for SUBs also, as they can go deeper in the Pacific than from Seattle.



Gurggulk -> RE: AI for MWiF - USA (7/12/2009 11:02:45 PM)

Considering the USA is about to go to war in about 2 years, subs could be placed in boston and still be ready for war when it comes. [>:]

Sub base Seattle has such a nice ring to it. Besides a little variation never hurts. [:D]



lomyrin -> RE: AI for MWiF - USA (7/12/2009 11:45:35 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gurggulk

Placing all transports on the west coast is perfectly acceptable.
My deployment suggestion has a symmetry that balances the east and west coast fleets. [:)] Which made me happy.

So we could have Option B

East Coast Fleet in Norfork
West Coast Fleet and 4 Transports in San Diego
Submarines in Seattle.



San Diego is a better place for SUBs also, as they can go deeper in the Pacific than from Seattle.


And the crews will be ever so much happier in San Diego.



paulderynck -> RE: AI for MWiF - USA (7/13/2009 6:25:40 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gurggulk

Considering the USA is about to go to war in about 2 years, subs could be placed in boston and still be ready for war when it comes. [>:]

Sub base Seattle has such a nice ring to it. Besides a little variation never hurts. [:D]

In an Oil game, every drop counts. No point doing the extra re-orgs.



Froonp -> RE: AI for MWiF - USA (7/13/2009 12:17:06 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gurggulk

Considering the USA is about to go to war in about 2 years, subs could be placed in boston and still be ready for war when it comes. [>:]

Sub base Seattle has such a nice ring to it. Besides a little variation never hurts. [:D]

In an Oil game, every drop counts. No point doing the extra re-orgs.

Right.
Also, no need for SUBs in the Atlantic, let's all of them setup in the West Coast.



Froonp -> RE: AI for MWiF - USA (7/13/2009 1:43:30 PM)

Also, I like swaping BBs from the East / West Coasts before the end of 1941, so that the 8 BB that go to Pearl really are the worst ones. 3 naval moves by impulse, this is accomplished very quickly.

I only reoganise them 4 per turn so that I don't use up oil reserves.

The US is in need of every single drop of oil it can spare. I need to not spend a single one before being at war.



brian brian -> RE: AI for MWiF - USA (7/13/2009 5:27:44 PM)

so it is good to build the SYNTH plant on turn one



paulderynck -> RE: AI for MWiF - USA (7/13/2009 10:16:55 PM)

I always build a factory in 1940 in order to get the benefit of the round-up once gear-up happens. I have not needed the Synth Plant as the U.S. in any games I've played.



paulderynck -> RE: AI for MWiF - USA (7/13/2009 10:24:05 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

Also, I like swaping BBs from the East / West Coasts before the end of 1941, so that the 8 BB that go to Pearl really are the worst ones. 3 naval moves by impulse, this is accomplished very quickly.

I only reoganise them 4 per turn so that I don't use up oil reserves.

The US is in need of every single drop of oil it can spare. I need to not spend a single one before being at war.

I do the same, the earlier the better. A neutral major power can only save one oil a turn and you only need 38 out of 40 (after the lends to Japan) RPs and Oil to build with, so you must waste an Oil a turn until you can pass an option to lend resources to somebody.



michaelbaldur -> RE: AI for MWiF - USA (7/13/2009 11:08:03 PM)

how are this rule ment ....

Saved oil resources
Neutral major powers can only save one oil per turn
(in addition to their previously saved oil).

is this just one ....

or does it work as a Gearing limit or

is it 1 +all saved oil in the country



sajbalk -> RE: AI for MWiF - USA (7/13/2009 11:24:31 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelbaldur

how are this rule ment ....

Saved oil resources
Neutral major powers can only save one oil per turn
(in addition to their previously saved oil).

is this just one ....

or does it work as a Gearing limit or

is it 1 +all saved oil in the country


The rule means that you can save 1 per turn. If you had 6, now you can have 7. If you had 12, you can save 1 and make it 13. If you had 13 and spent 3, you can save 1 and make it 11.





Froonp -> RE: AI for MWiF - USA (7/14/2009 8:58:18 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian

so it is good to build the SYNTH plant on turn one

The building of the Synth plant, and of an extra factory are both valid choices in the long term for the USA.
I never did the former, and I did the latter sometimes but not every time. Maybe it depend if US Entry is advancing quickly or not ?



brian brian -> RE: AI for MWiF - USA (7/14/2009 4:12:10 PM)

I guess the question is, does the US ever run out of oil when playing with RaW oil? I don't know. I thought I learned from Froonp's comments over the years that it might but I rarely see 1944/45 in WiF.



Froonp -> RE: AI for MWiF - USA (7/14/2009 5:00:05 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian

I guess the question is, does the US ever run out of oil when playing with RaW oil? I don't know. I thought I learned from Froonp's comments over the years that it might but I rarely see 1944/45 in WiF.

Make the maths.
When you use regulary 13 oils per turns minimum in 44 & 45.



brian brian -> RE: AI for MWiF - USA (7/14/2009 5:33:15 PM)

13? wow, thanks.



Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.765625