RE: AI for MWiF - USA

RE: AI for MWiF - USA (Full Version)

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

Message

composer99 -> RE: AI for MWiF - USA (3/22/2011 5:49:13 PM)
From post #202: quote: how that there are the same hexes everywhere .... the range from USA have changed which means that must planes can´t rebase to UK or to the pacific... so USA need all of it´s transporters and amph ... this is mostly because the American map was not at the right scale ... so if I were a German player and I see that USA losses it´s naval gearing... I would react by not DOW on Denmark... which means that USA can´t rebase though Greenland... and force them to sail all air units ...with it´s fewer transporters ... Regarding not going to war with Denmark: It's a long time between the US entry into the war and when Germany typically declares war on Denmark (most often the first turn of the game unless the weather turns rainy/stormy). Is it worth giving the CW free access to the Baltic for 2 game years and then the CW/US free naval access to the Baltic afterward just to try and make the USAAF's life a little harder? Even if Germany leaves some extra troops to threaten a quick takeover of Copenhagen, there's no reason not to throw 1-2 subs or cruisers into the Baltic every turn and be a damned nuisance. On top of all that, the Allies can just DoW Denmark themselves if they really want the rebase path in 1942. Or they can DoW Portugal for the Azores rebase path. Regarding scaling: If you are playing with triple rebase over friendly territory/sea areas and with extended-range planes, I rather doubt that US aircraft with ranges of 10 or more will be unable to rebase appropriately at the new scale (caveat: while I used to have CWiF I don't anymore so I can't verify this - perhaps a beta tester can do a hex count?) Even on the paper maps most US planes need to take one of these routes to get to Europe: US-Azores-UK (if you get control of them somehow), US-Greenland-UK, or US-Newfoundland-Greenland-(Iceland?)-UK. Only quite long-range planes can fly direct.

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: AI for MWiF - USA (3/22/2011 7:21:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: composer99 From post #202: quote: how that there are the same hexes everywhere .... the range from USA have changed which means that must planes can´t rebase to UK or to the pacific... so USA need all of it´s transporters and amph ... this is mostly because the American map was not at the right scale ... so if I were a German player and I see that USA losses it´s naval gearing... I would react by not DOW on Denmark... which means that USA can´t rebase though Greenland... and force them to sail all air units ...with it´s fewer transporters ... Regarding not going to war with Denmark: It's a long time between the US entry into the war and when Germany typically declares war on Denmark (most often the first turn of the game unless the weather turns rainy/stormy). Is it worth giving the CW free access to the Baltic for 2 game years and then the CW/US free naval access to the Baltic afterward just to try and make the USAAF's life a little harder? Even if Germany leaves some extra troops to threaten a quick takeover of Copenhagen, there's no reason not to throw 1-2 subs or cruisers into the Baltic every turn and be a damned nuisance. On top of all that, the Allies can just DoW Denmark themselves if they really want the rebase path in 1942. Or they can DoW Portugal for the Azores rebase path. Regarding scaling: If you are playing with triple rebase over friendly territory/sea areas and with extended-range planes, I rather doubt that US aircraft with ranges of 10 or more will be unable to rebase appropriately at the new scale (caveat: while I used to have CWiF I don't anymore so I can't verify this - perhaps a beta tester can do a hex count?) Even on the paper maps most US planes need to take one of these routes to get to Europe: US-Azores-UK (if you get control of them somehow), US-Greenland-UK, or US-Newfoundland-Greenland-(Iceland?)-UK. Only quite long-range planes can fly direct. [image]local://upfiles/16701/0C4691421F9A4F1384FA7A2A8F78DA68.jpg[/image]

michaelbaldur -> RE: AI for MWiF - USA (3/22/2011 8:17:58 PM)
so 49 hexes .... that means that you need a (17 range or 9 extended range) air plane to fly direct Canada/UK only the black widow and the twin mustang fighters have that kind of range ... for bombers it is only lnd4s and nav3 that have that kind of range ....

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: AI for MWiF - USA (3/22/2011 10:05:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: michaelbaldur so 49 hexes .... that means that you need a (17 range or 9 extended range) air plane to fly direct Canada/UK only the black widow and the twin mustang fighters have that kind of range ... for bombers it is only lnd4s and nav3 that have that kind of range .... I haven't looked at it in detail but you might be able to fly a Naval Air mission and make the return to base reach the British Isles.

Ullern -> RE: AI for MWiF - USA (3/22/2011 10:49:38 PM)
Interesting point. The distances might be different. But after some test: Hey! The differences between MWIF and WIF are really incredible small! Although it's never been quite clear exactly how you're supposed to count when getting off the American minimap, but using my way off counting on the WIFFE board game (using the American mini map) I get: 48 hexes from Saint Jonh's to Plymouth. 48 hexes from Saint Jonh's to Brest. 42 hexes from Saint Jonh's to Casablanca. If using an additional rebase via Greenland, the distance Sydproven to Plymouth is 29 hexes. If using an additional rebase via Greenland, the distance Sydproven to Casablanca is 24 hexes. Flying from Saint Jonh's do I always do, but if I need to rebase to Saint John's that means it takes to impulses and air missions to get to Europe. Flying via Greenland makes that three impulses. I experimented earlier with flying via Iceland with even shorter range aircraft, but I found the cost in air missions to be too expensive for the Iceland option, so I never do that. What about MWIF? 49 hexes from Saint Jonh's to Plymouth. 46 hexes from Saint Jonh's to Brest. 49 hexes from Saint Jonh's to Casablanca. But Sydproven to Plymouth/Casablanca is actually longer than Saint Jonh's to Plymouth/Casablanca, so those options are no longer good. Very close I'd say. And I always thought getting to Casablanca with so few moves in WIF the board game was very gamey. (North Atlantic Sea Area is very long in the North-South direction but WIF RAW allowed you to fly to the northernmost hex in North Atlantic on the American minimap and still use the southernmost North Atlantic arrow on the European map, which means the aircraft "jumped" a huge step southwards.)

brian brian -> RE: AI for MWiF - USA (3/23/2011 12:08:08 AM)
again from post #202 quote: ORIGINAL: michaelbaldur so if I were a German player and I see that USA losses it´s naval gearing... I would react by not DOW on Denmark... which means that USA can´t rebase though Greenland... and force them to sail all air units ...with it´s fewer transporters ... and I know this the AI for USA thread, but this reminded me of a fun move I like to make sometimes on the first turn. That is to break down the initial German MTN corps at start in Kiel. Then if the weather in the Arctic and one or two Royal Navy intercept attempts allow, DoW Denmark with a combined impulse and land the mountain division in Iceland. Does this gain the Germans very much? No, not really; maybe a few less Danish CP survive if the Allies set any up there for some reason. They'll rarely be able to keep the place in supply unless a Gibraltar+Sea Lion campaign gets wildly successful. The point is to freak out the CW....what is Adolf up to now? Lay down a U-boat or two during that build phase, or even lay down an AMPH that you never finish and the BEF might hardly even leave England. You might lose a +0.5 on an always difficult assault on Leningrad later on in the game if you can't rescue the mountain division via another lucky run by a heavy cruiser (or maybe even the Bismarck, what the heck). If the division gets flipped somehow you might even have to risk a couple-three convoy points over the winter of 1940 when you have little else to do anyways. In the meantime the CW might sweat a bit....or even try and figure out a way to get it back, a bit easier with actual hexes of Iceland to land on. Perhaps I posted this before, I forget.

SirWhiskers -> RE: AI for MWiF - USA (3/23/2011 3:32:51 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. It's been ages since I last played WIF, but I was reading the original Fire and Movement article recently. It included a series replay where the US player did this and the Japanese player attacked San Diego instead of Pearl Harbor. The US player lost half his transports and never really recovered. Is such an attack possible in MWIF? If so, what's the best alternative for the US player?

michaelbaldur -> RE: AI for MWiF - USA (3/23/2011 4:33:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SirWhiskers 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. It's been ages since I last played WIF, but I was reading the original Fire and Movement article recently. It included a series replay where the US player did this and the Japanese player attacked San Diego instead of Pearl Harbor. The US player lost half his transports and never really recovered. Is such an attack possible in MWIF? If so, what's the best alternative for the US player? øhhh only Japanese port within range are a minor port in the Marshalls ... I can´t see japan use 4 naval units to port attack west coast ... yes Japan could destroy a transporter ... but then the americans would sail out ..and smash the small fleet .. no carrier is worth a transporter ... edit : truk are with in range ... but only from 3 start carriers (kaga 4, hiruy 3 ,jrynjo 2,) but that means that you will have to split up the fleet ..... and ends up in the 0 section .. [sm=00000106.gif][sm=fighting0083.gif][sm=sterb011.gif][sm=sterb020.gif] if you don´t have pearl harbour you will be to low in the sea area. and that can only end up a disaster

Orm -> RE: AI for MWiF - USA (3/23/2011 8:46:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SirWhiskers 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. It's been ages since I last played WIF, but I was reading the original Fire and Movement article recently. It included a series replay where the US player did this and the Japanese player attacked San Diego instead of Pearl Harbor. The US player lost half his transports and never really recovered. Is such an attack possible in MWIF? If so, what's the best alternative for the US player? It is still possible to do such attack. One example on how to do this. Japan make a naval and sails with 6 carriers from The Marshals to the US West Coast. Then he stays there to next turn. The next turn he declares war on USA and take another naval (or a supercombined), makes his port strike and then sails back on his naval movement. This way Japan does not leave his carriers vulnerable next to the US West Coast. (The Marshals can stack up to 12 naval units. If you place a HQ there you can reorganize some of your carrier fleet when you return to base) Easiest way to defend the US transporters is to have most (all?) of them on the East Coast where they can't be reached by Japan. And when the war breaks you sail back the ones you need against Japan by using the Panama Canal. That only takes one turn and you wouldn't have used them that much on the first turn of war against Japan anyway.

michaelbaldur -> RE: AI for MWiF - USA (3/23/2011 10:31:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Orm quote: ORIGINAL: SirWhiskers 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. It's been ages since I last played WIF, but I was reading the original Fire and Movement article recently. It included a series replay where the US player did this and the Japanese player attacked San Diego instead of Pearl Harbor. The US player lost half his transports and never really recovered. Is such an attack possible in MWIF? If so, what's the best alternative for the US player? It is still possible to do such attack. One example on how to do this. Japan make a naval and sails with 6 carriers from The Marshals to the US West Coast. Then he stays there to next turn. The next turn he declares war on USA and take another naval (or a supercombined), makes his port strike and then sails back on his naval movement. This way Japan does not leave his carriers vulnerable next to the US West Coast. (The Marshals can stack up to 12 naval units. If you place a HQ there you can reorganize some of your carrier fleet when you return to base) Easiest way to defend the US transporters is to have most (all?) of them on the East Coast where they can't be reached by Japan. And when the war breaks you sail back the ones you need against Japan by using the Panama Canal. That only takes one turn and you wouldn't have used them that much on the first turn of war against Japan anyway. I would think that that is to risky ... you will still be out there a impulse ..in a low section ... what happens if USA rolls that magic 3 ...Dow you ... move out his fleet .. picks surface ... and smash your fleet ...

paulderynck -> RE: AI for MWiF - USA (3/23/2011 9:50:45 PM)
Yup if I saw this as the USA I'd try for a DoW as long as there was at least a 10% chance. Otherwise or maybe as well - you are never guaranteed finding stuff - I'd start using my naval moves to get CVs and the best TRSs out to other ports. But if the JP moved out and then the turned ended and the next turn the axis gets Inititiative - then this could be very effective.

npilgaard -> RE: AI for MWiF - USA (4/14/2011 11:18:46 AM)
Looked through the many excellent posts in this thread - a few quick comments: 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. Usually it is preferred to have the worst BBs/CVs at Pearl in case of Japanese DoW. However, depending on the overall situation (US chits level, Japanese navy is engaged against CW in NEI/Indian Ocean, or if the US player just likes to play a little risky [:)] it may be worthwhile to place the top BB/CVs in Pearl and go for a US DoW, hitting the Japanese hard (the convoy lines or a managable fleet) during the surprise impulse - if the Japanese CVs/BBs are committed already (at sea in NEI or elsewhere) the main US fleet can commit in relatively safety, easily taking out convoy escorts and - if lucky - crippling the Japanese convoy lines (for that turn, at least). Hitting the Japanese convoy lines are very high priority in order to wear down/take out Japan, I think (of course this is not always possible, but if it is, the earlier the better). (Another top priority is sinking Japanese CVs - once the US get CV/ac superiority Japan is severely hampered.) Btw, for the AI regarding the Philippines: since return to base is happening after US entry at turn end: if the US is planning to choose the Pearl Harbour or Philippines (or other similar) options at the end of a turn, then it is a good idea to sail out units to sea during the turn, letting them return to base to Pearl or Manila at the end of the turn, after the option is chosen (especially when returning to Manila it may surprise the Japanese, suddently having forces there, making it much harder to capture - just get the TRS out of there quickly, before the declaration of war comes...! [:)] quote: ORIGINAL: paulderynck You can never have enough BPs with the U.S. The 8 you spend will be paid back the first 8 turns after you gear-up. After that the rest is all gravy. That is why you should build the factory the earlier, the better. Without doubt the US will receive more BP overall if building factory (maybe synth as well) early on. However, this has to be weighted against a number of things, e.g.: - a unit built earlier will get more 'playing time' (unless destroyed [:)] ) than a unit built later - the US likely wants to go for certain objectives as soon as possible, so the stronger it is when entering the war the better. Spending BPs on factories etc. will mean a few less units early on (but more during the end game) - time is all-important for the allies, thus it is nice to get going right away - during the end game the US often has so many units that is becomes somewhat difficult to use the all in an optimal manner (especially taking acitivity limits into consideration) - one for one, I find that a unit is worth more at the earlier stage of the game when there are fewer of them, than at the later stages. Personally I tend not to build factories/synths, but I think that both options (building or not building factories/synths) are viable. It mainly depends on preferred overall US 'strategy': wanting to have a few more units early on, or more units later on.

Extraneous -> RE: AI for MWiF - USA (4/14/2011 3:14:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: composer99 From post #202: quote: How that there are the same hexes everywhere... the range from USA have changed which means that must planes can´t rebase to UK or to the pacific... So the USA needs all of its transporters and amph ... this is mostly because the American map was not at the right scale ... So if I were a German player and I see that USA losses it´s naval gearing... I would react by not DOW on Denmark... which means that USA can´t rebase though Greenland... and force them to sail all air units ...with it´s fewer transporters ... Regarding not going to war with Denmark: It's a long time between the US enters the war and when Germany typically declares war on Denmark (most often the first turn of the game unless the weather turns rainy/stormy). Is it worth giving the CW free access to the Baltic for 2 game years and then the CW/US free naval access to the Baltic afterward just to try and make the USAAF's life a little harder? Even if Germany leaves some extra troops to threaten a quick takeover of Copenhagen, there's no reason not to throw 1-2 subs or cruisers into the Baltic every turn and be a damned nuisance. On top of all that, the Allies can just DoW Denmark themselves if they really want the rebase path in 1942. Or they can DoW Portugal for the Azores rebase path. Regarding scaling: If you are playing with triple rebase over friendly territory/sea areas and with extended-range planes, I rather doubt that US aircraft with ranges of 10 or more will be unable to rebase appropriately at the new scale (caveat: while I used to have CWiF I don't anymore so I can't verify this - perhaps a beta tester can do a hex count?) Even on the paper maps most US planes need to take one of these routes to get to Europe: US-Azores-UK (if you get control of them somehow), US-Greenland-UK, or US-Newfoundland-Greenland-(Iceland?)-UK. Only quite long-range planes can fly direct. Excuse me but assuming the Axis is competent enough to capture Copenhagen. How does a DOW of Denmark give anyone but the Axis free access to the Baltic Sea for two game years? When… quote: 11.4.4 Naval movement restrictions 4. You can’t move naval units between the Baltic Sea and the North Sea (even via Fredrikshavn or Kristiansand) if major powers you are at war with control at least 2 of Oslo, Copenhagen and Kiel.

composer99 -> RE: AI for MWiF - USA (4/14/2011 4:57:58 PM)
Extraneous, the reply was in response to a suggestion that Germany forego declaring war on Denmark (and thus forego controlling Copenhagen, and thus not fulfill the conditions to restrict Allied naval movement into the Baltic) long enough to hamper US aircraft rebasing via Greenland/Iceland.

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: AI for MWiF - USA (4/14/2011 8:33:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Extraneous quote: ORIGINAL: composer99 From post #202: quote: How that there are the same hexes everywhere... the range from USA have changed which means that must planes can´t rebase to UK or to the pacific... So the USA needs all of its transporters and amph ... this is mostly because the American map was not at the right scale ... So if I were a German player and I see that USA losses it´s naval gearing... I would react by not DOW on Denmark... which means that USA can´t rebase though Greenland... and force them to sail all air units ...with it´s fewer transporters ... Regarding not going to war with Denmark: It's a long time between the US enters the war and when Germany typically declares war on Denmark (most often the first turn of the game unless the weather turns rainy/stormy). Is it worth giving the CW free access to the Baltic for 2 game years and then the CW/US free naval access to the Baltic afterward just to try and make the USAAF's life a little harder? Even if Germany leaves some extra troops to threaten a quick takeover of Copenhagen, there's no reason not to throw 1-2 subs or cruisers into the Baltic every turn and be a damned nuisance. On top of all that, the Allies can just DoW Denmark themselves if they really want the rebase path in 1942. Or they can DoW Portugal for the Azores rebase path. Regarding scaling: If you are playing with triple rebase over friendly territory/sea areas and with extended-range planes, I rather doubt that US aircraft with ranges of 10 or more will be unable to rebase appropriately at the new scale (caveat: while I used to have CWiF I don't anymore so I can't verify this - perhaps a beta tester can do a hex count?) Even on the paper maps most US planes need to take one of these routes to get to Europe: US-Azores-UK (if you get control of them somehow), US-Greenland-UK, or US-Newfoundland-Greenland-(Iceland?)-UK. Only quite long-range planes can fly direct. Excuse me but assuming the Axis is competent enough to capture Copenhagen. How does a DOW of Denmark give anyone but the Axis free access to the Baltic Sea for two game years? When… quote: 11.4.4 Naval movement restrictions 4. You can’t move naval units between the Baltic Sea and the North Sea (even via Fredrikshavn or Kristiansand) if major powers you are at war with control at least 2 of Oslo, Copenhagen and Kiel. Something I discovered by accident when testing overruns is that if the Germans move into Copenhagen any naval units there can not exit the Baltic Sea. They can only rebase to Aarhus or Frederikshavn.

Extraneous -> RE: AI for MWiF - USA (4/14/2011 9:53:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets Something I discovered by accident when testing overruns is that if the Germans move into Copenhagen any naval units there can not exit the Baltic Sea. They can only rebase to Aarhus or Frederikshavn. I believe I ran into that problem and reported it during the ADG WiF Beta (WiF Alpha for Froonp). I was informed that a "Scuttle" option was planned. Note: The Peder Skram (CA) has a 1 range and the Niels Iuel (CA) has a 2 range. This information is from the Pions WiF-AiF-PatiF spreadsheet.

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: AI for MWiF - USA (4/14/2011 10:55:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Extraneous quote: ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets Something I discovered by accident when testing overruns is that if the Germans move into Copenhagen any naval units there can not exit the Baltic Sea. They can only rebase to Aarhus or Frederikshavn. I believe I ran into that problem and reported it during the ADG WiF Beta (WiF Alpha for Froonp). I was informed that a "Scuttle" option was planned. Note: The Peder Skram (CA) has a 1 range and the Niels Iuel (CA) has a 2 range. This information is from the Pions WiF-AiF-PatiF spreadsheet. It's not a problem. The code executed this correctly. Once the Germans enter Copenhagen, they control 2 of the 3 key cities and entering/exiting the Baltic is not possible for any Allied units.

Extraneous -> RE: AI for MWiF - USA (4/21/2011 6:17:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets quote: ORIGINAL: Extraneous quote: ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets Something I discovered by accident when testing overruns is that if the Germans move into Copenhagen any naval units there can not exit the Baltic Sea. They can only rebase to Aarhus or Frederikshavn. I believe I ran into that problem and reported it during the ADG WiF Beta (WiF Alpha for Froonp). I was informed that a "Scuttle" option was planned. Note: The Peder Skram (CA) has a 1 range and the Niels Iuel (CA) has a 2 range. This information is from the Pions WiF-AiF-PatiF spreadsheet. It's not a problem. The code executed this correctly. Once the Germans enter Copenhagen, they control 2 of the 3 key cities and entering/exiting the Baltic is not possible for any Allied units. So there are no longer issues with ships having to re-base that have insufficient range?

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: AI for MWiF - USA (4/21/2011 7:55:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Extraneous quote: ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets quote: ORIGINAL: Extraneous quote: ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets Something I discovered by accident when testing overruns is that if the Germans move into Copenhagen any naval units there can not exit the Baltic Sea. They can only rebase to Aarhus or Frederikshavn. I believe I ran into that problem and reported it during the ADG WiF Beta (WiF Alpha for Froonp). I was informed that a "Scuttle" option was planned. Note: The Peder Skram (CA) has a 1 range and the Niels Iuel (CA) has a 2 range. This information is from the Pions WiF-AiF-PatiF spreadsheet. It's not a problem. The code executed this correctly. Once the Germans enter Copenhagen, they control 2 of the 3 key cities and entering/exiting the Baltic is not possible for any Allied units. So there are no longer issues with ships having to re-base that have insufficient range? If an overrun naval unit has no ports within range, it is destroyed. I am not sure whether that is done automatically with an informative message or whether the player has to actively 'destroy' the naval unit. There's no real difference between the two.

Extraneous -> RE: AI for MWiF - USA (4/25/2011 10:44:14 PM)
What I am refering to is... A naval unit is overrun. The naval units range is not large enough to get it to a frindly port. The ADG WiF game used to hang up if this occured.

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: AI for MWiF - USA (4/26/2011 1:50:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Extraneous What I am refering to is... A naval unit is overrun. The naval units range is not large enough to get it to a frindly port. The ADG WiF game used to hang up if this occured. That's the game situation I was describing.

Extraneous -> RE: AI for MWiF - USA (4/26/2011 1:45:45 PM)
So when a naval unit is overrun. The naval units range is not large enough to get it to a frindly port. MWiF doesn't hang up if this occurs?

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: AI for MWiF - USA (4/26/2011 7:21:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Extraneous So when a naval unit is overrun. The naval units range is not large enough to get it to a frindly port. MWiF doesn't hang up if this occurs? Nope. You can even overrun units multiple times.

Centuur -> RE: AI for MWiF - USA (6/8/2011 8:21:09 PM)
Personally I think that to many focus in the AI threads here is given to play with optional rules (like Oil, Pif, Sif etc. etc.). I get the opinion that this occurs due to the fact that most people in this forum are used to play with these rules in effect (and they are really nice rules to play with...). However, a starting player would probably go in his first game without any optional rules. I probably too would start MWIF with a basic game, just to be able to quickly understand the very nice tool box Shannon is building for the game. You now the: "which button does what exactly". A basic game (without any optional rules) should have an AI which acts differently in comparison with a game with optional rules in effect. For the US for example, the building strategy has to be different, taking in to account the optional rules that are in effect... Will McArthur stay in the Phillipines or will he get out as soon as possible? Which combat table is being used (there are considerations regarding that to)? In basic game force pools the AI probably doesn't scrap any units at start. Even the set up be a point of consideration in combination with the optional rules in play. I am a little worried: is the AI going to be able to cope with these differences?

Red Prince -> RE: AI for MWiF - USA (6/8/2011 8:42:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Centuur Personally I think that to many focus in the AI threads here is given to play with optional rules (like Oil, Pif, Sif etc. etc.). I get the opinion that this occurs due to the fact that most people in this forum are used to play with these rules in effect (and they are really nice rules to play with...). However, a starting player would probably go in his first game without any optional rules. I probably too would start MWIF with a basic game, just to be able to quickly understand the very nice tool box Shannon is building for the game. You now the: "which button does what exactly". A basic game (without any optional rules) should have an AI which acts differently in comparison with a game with optional rules in effect. For the US for example, the building strategy has to be different, taking in to account the optional rules that are in effect... Will McArthur stay in the Phillipines or will he get out as soon as possible? Which combat table is being used (there are considerations regarding that to)? In basic game force pools the AI probably doesn't scrap any units at start. Even the set up be a point of consideration in combination with the optional rules in play. I am a little worried: is the AI going to be able to cope with these differences? Hopefully better than I can! [:)] For various reasons I'm testing with practically everything thrown in for optionals, and my logic gets a bit fuzzy after a while. But I am not a computer. From what I understand, the logic for the AIO is being written to account for all of these concerns. If a particular rule isn't being used, that group of commands gets skipped, so to speak. If I can find the post where the structure is explained, I'll add it to this post. -Aaron ----- Edit: I've dug into a number of threads, and I just can't remember where I saw the breakdown of how decisions will be made. It might be in a monthly report or in one of the many AI discussions. I'll keep an eye open and try to figure it out. Sorry I couldn't help just yet.

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: AI for MWiF - USA (6/8/2011 10:56:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Centuur Personally I think that to many focus in the AI threads here is given to play with optional rules (like Oil, Pif, Sif etc. etc.). I get the opinion that this occurs due to the fact that most people in this forum are used to play with these rules in effect (and they are really nice rules to play with...). However, a starting player would probably go in his first game without any optional rules. I probably too would start MWIF with a basic game, just to be able to quickly understand the very nice tool box Shannon is building for the game. You now the: "which button does what exactly". A basic game (without any optional rules) should have an AI which acts differently in comparison with a game with optional rules in effect. For the US for example, the building strategy has to be different, taking in to account the optional rules that are in effect... Will McArthur stay in the Phillipines or will he get out as soon as possible? Which combat table is being used (there are considerations regarding that to)? In basic game force pools the AI probably doesn't scrap any units at start. Even the set up be a point of consideration in combination with the optional rules in play. I am a little worried: is the AI going to be able to cope with these differences? Tactically this isn't a problem. For instance, the AIO will simply check to see if invasions are possible. Optional rules affect that a lot, but the AIO doesn't need to check into which rules are ON. It just lets the code for normal processing determine if invasions are possbile (or will be possible in the next impulse/turn). The same applies to virtually all of the rules involving additional units. Strategically (as you noted) what optional rules are in effect makes a difference. And that means the AIO strategic plans have to take into consideration which optional rules are being used. Operationally? Probably a mix of Yes/No.

Centuur -> RE: AI for MWiF - USA (6/9/2011 7:29:18 PM)
Weel, I think you've got a huge amount of work to take all these kind of things into account while programming the AI. [X(]

composer99 -> RE: AI for MWiF - USA (12/20/2012 5:23:06 PM)
Question to drive some discussion on the AI threads: What kind of USA SUB builds do people engage in and why?

Centuur -> RE: AI for MWiF - USA (12/20/2012 6:13:52 PM)
It depends. If the USA has got a Japan first policy, I would build some to kill the convoys. If not, I don't build them.

brian brian -> RE: AI for MWiF - USA (12/21/2012 2:06:10 AM)
Always a few at least in the middle of the game, but not till Russia is safe for sure.

Page: << < prev 6 7 [8] 9 10 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.125