Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: gregtherobot

well,

sort of "a bit" - i have some serious time constraints in my real life . I would be happy to assist in certain specific questions, e.g. the example of choosing the action type. checking options and choices - if everything is covered, sort of playing the bad guy: what if this, what if that etc.

(kind of feels like letting you down on my 3rd post - not a good start!)

you have any examples of what could be in question?

greets

greg the robot

quote:

ORIGINAL: abj9562

Will the Ai scripts be accessible for players to modify?

quote:

ORIGINAL: abj9562

Sorry for the late reply. I have been busy with the Christmas Holiday Season. I reviewed the Yugoslav pseudo code as you suggested. It appears to be well thought out and the code will be significantly harder for armchair coders than most games.

If I understand these are the reasons for not the LAIO code:

1) Players evaluating the AI and manipulating it to "game" the system. Ruining multiplayer games for many people.
(I think this is perhaps the strongest argument for hrad coding the scripts.)

2) Unforseen possibilities, results, and consequences in the initial AI  scripts.
(These wiill very likely have to be modified for game quality by you after the initial release.

3) Additional support and overhead of making the AI transparent.
(Very understandable business concerns.)

With this knowledge I advocate for no release of the LAIO code at all. If the game design kit comes out I hope the only way to modify LAIO is to write completely new scripts from a generic sample instead of reading and modifying the original. Hopefully this will make both worlds happy for the modder and for people wanting an honest game.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Steve

Using an example of a recent AAR that was posted, can you let me know:

You have two AGC`s - one for Poland and one for France. Set up for both areas is as per one of the options that Peter has been working on. All good so far.

What happens when the CW force is "spotted" heading for Denmark? i.e. how do the various decision makers work to:

- Decide how many forces, Land, air (and possibly sea) to commit to this threat?
- Is the threat best cut off by invading Denmark first - or waiting for the CW to do so (if indeed thats the target)?
- Where do those forces come from? Is a General created for the "Danish Front"? or does AGC West pick this up?
- At what stage does the manufacturing council decide whether this new unexpected development needs an alternative build plan?
- If the German commit naval forces and they get beaten (thus the Germans suffer early unexpected naval losses), how does the decision making process decide whether to replace these, or continue with the land and air units that Germany need for the French campaign?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Steve

Using an example of a recent AAR that was posted, can you let me know:

You have two AGC`s - one for Poland and one for France. Set up for both areas is as per one of the options that Peter has been working on. All good so far.

What happens when the CW force is "spotted" heading for Denmark? i.e. how do the various decision makers work to:

- Decide how many forces, Land, air (and possibly sea) to commit to this threat?
- Is the threat best cut off by invading Denmark first - or waiting for the CW to do so (if indeed thats the target)?
- Where do those forces come from? Is a General created for the "Danish Front"? or does AGC West pick this up?
- At what stage does the manufacturing council decide whether this new unexpected development needs an alternative build plan?
- If the German commit naval forces and they get beaten (thus the Germans suffer early unexpected naval losses), how does the decision making process decide whether to replace these, or continue with the land and air units that Germany need for the French campaign?

Some of your questions here are off-topic in they ask about production priorities. The top 8 decision makers funnel their priorities to the manufacturing council which adjudicates who gets what according to the strategic plan.

But on topic was your question about Denmark. That would be part of the European Invasions AO. What I missed in my rather quickly written example is that there would have to be a German AGC for that AO too. As a separate country, Denmark would be its own region (but not multiple regions). The AGC could create two generals, one to deal with threats to Germany (e.g., Kiel) and one to deal with Denmark. However, since these are all so close together the AGC should handle it without creating subordinates.

Subordinates are only created when necessary (e.g., China doesn't need any Rear Admirals, the USSR doesn't need a Field Marshal for the South Pacific). Also, subordinates should only be created when two different tasks are at hand. If there is really only one problem area then that is handled directly.

I see most of the TOs as having no one assigned by most of the major powers. Only the US and CW have a true global presence throughout the war. Then within each TO there might be many empty AOs, with no decision makers involved. As the war progresses, some areas will heat up and need decision makers assigned. When they cool off, the decision makers will disappear. This all mimics how things occurred historically, which is one of the main reasons I favor this design.

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Well, Rob, here is a long answer.
===
II Evaluation Metric
2.1 Overview and Purpose
The AI Opponent (AIO) makes trade-offs between time, materiel, and territory. To do so it uses a common metric that can be applied to all the elements of the game described in Section I. Victory hexes are an exception. Because deciding which hex is a victory hex was somewhat arbitrary and they are scattered all over the world, it is difficult to assign each one a value in a metric that relates to the other elements of game play. So, the AIO deals with victory hexes only at the strategic level and within the Grand Strategist’s decision making.

The other game elements described in Section I are measured in terms of Combat Value (CV) or Combat Value Turn (CVT). CVs are based on the strength of land units. When multiplied by time, they become CVTs. CVs can be thought of as mass and when multiplied by time they become force. This analogy is imperfect and shouldn’t be taken as more than a convenient image. The best points of these metrics are that they let us measure: (1) the strength of each county’s force in absolute and relative terms, and (2) both the forces and time it takes to accomplish a task.

The CV system works with absolute/abstract value. A 6-4 infantry is always a 6-4 infantry. The relative value assessments based on that metric are made by the decision maker depending on the current circumstances. An air unit that is capable of flying all three bomber missions (tactical, strategic, and naval) would have one abstract CV value, but different decision makers (DMs) might assess its relative value differently (the JCS planning strategic bombing, the Admiralty planning naval combat, the Field Marshal planning ground support). At the point of making the decision, the DM calculates a mission specific CV value - the number of bombing factors the unit provides for the air mission type and the subsequent benefit in CVs of the mission succeeding. As another example, having an HQ become disorganized can be very bad. The CV value of the HQ does not change, rather the Field Marshal takes the effect of disorganization into consideration when making his decisions on attacking and defending. The FM translates the disorganization of the HQ into a CV modification due to the consequences of the HQ's changed state.

The result is a universal metric that can be applied to all decisions by the DMs. A combat risks so many CVs; sending a naval task force out costs so many CVTs; flying a strategic bombing mission risks so many CVs - with the possible benefit of inflicting so many CVs of damage on the enemy's production; an air-to-air combat has risk/reward in terms of CVs; capturing resource points gains so many CVs for our side and causes the loss of so many CVs to the enemy; and so on. To keep this metric universal, how it is calculated doesn’t take into consideration all the immediate and possibly changing circumstances. There are simply too many variables involved. At the highest level of the decision making, the metric has to be consistent.

CVs let the AIO compare the risk of taking losses versus the opportunity of inflicting losses on the enemy. This applies for land, air, and naval combats. They are the core ingredient in these decision making processes and are applied to: getting things done, land, air, and naval unit losses on the map, unit construction, and all aspects of transportation lines. They are used to evaluate combat losses and therefore for choosing where to attack. They are a crucial part of deciding which units are best to build. They measure the worth of production and the associated resource transportation lines. And finally, they enable the AIO to assign each hex a value. The last is done as an aggregation of all the previous elements and is explained in Section 2.9.

2.2 Getting Things Done
The cost of getting things done is simply the CV value of the units involved multiplied by the number of turns they will be needed/committed, including transit time. Most decisions consume resources for one turn. Land offensives are the exception to this rule. At the tactical level, Field Marshals make decisions for each impulse. They use the same basic system of units multiplied by time but substitute impulses instead of turns for the time metric. This lets them evaluate whether it is best to defer an attack until a later impulse, when the probability of its success will be better.

2.3 Land Unit Combat Values
The combat value of any land unit on the map is measured in CVs. Conceptually, the CV cost of losing a unit on the map measures the unit’s combat worth. The simplest case is setting the value for a 6-4 infantry unit. It’s strength is 6 and that gives it an CV of 6. To the straight forward combat strength of a land unit, adjustments are made that take into consideration its mobility. Working from a base of 4 movements points, the combat value is incremented or decremented by a ½ point for every difference in movement points. For example, a 7-5 infantry is worth 7.5 CVs and a 6-3 is worth 5.5 CVs. Divisional units are reduced by a full point for their lack of zones of control. There is a minimum combat value of 1 CV for a unit after adjustments, which keeps 2-1 garrison and 1-4 divisional units from becoming entirely worthless.

Many land units have unique abilities: armor, engineers, HQs, AT, AA, artillery, and divisional units in general. There are also weaker units like garrisons, territorials, and militia. The utility of their different capabilities depends on the battlefield situation. Engineers are pretty worthless on defense in the open. ATs have little value if there isn’t any enemy armor launching attacks. Armor attacking Leningrad adds nothing to the attack. Marine units inland are just weak infantry. See Section 4.2.1 for specific details.

2.4 Naval Unit Combat Values
Measuring naval unit combat values is similar to how it is done for land units. Naval unit CVs (NCVs) are converted into standard CVs (i.e., land unit CVs) depending on the game situation. The range adjustments are different for naval units. See Section 4.2.2 for the details on both range adjustments and converting NCVs to CVs.

2.5 Air Unit Combat Values
For an air unit, its CVs (ACVs) depend on its primary purpose: air-to-air factor for fighters, and tactical, strategic, and naval factors for bombers. Air transport units (ATRs) are handled differently. ACVs are converted into standard CVs (i.e., land unit CVs) depending on the game situation. The range adjustments are harder to make for air units than for land units. See Section 4.2.3 for the details on both range adjustments and converting ACVs to CVs.

2.6 Production, Resources, and Factories
The AIO’s strategic plan measures the relative importance of producing armor versus infantry versus militia versus AT and so on. There may be “have to produce” quantities for infantry, armor, and HQs. Any excess production points are spent on units that have the highest CV per build point rating.

The FMs, Admiralty, and Air Marshal provide the Manufacturing Council with assessments of the value (measured in CVs) of different unit types in future years. The trade off between infantry and armor is crucial, especially for Germany and the USSR. There is also the trade off between land units and submarines for Germany. The benefit in land CVs of submarines attacking the Commonwealth merchant marine is substantial. It is measured as either the CVs the Commonwealth loses when the convoy pipeline is damaged/destroyed, or the CV cost incurred diverting build points to construct naval units to protect convoys.

During production each unit type is evaluated in terms of its combat value per build point (CV/BP). When selecting unit types for construction, one that can be built quickly may be more attractive than one that takes a long time. This depends on the effect the unit type will have arriving sooner versus later at a specific battlefield. Thus, militia and territorial units are more desirable when land units are needed immediately for defense or whose roles are simply to garrison against partisans or unlikely attacks. It also makes bombers that take 2 turns more attractive than those that take 3. There are many other factors that go into production decisions. For example, gearing limits are crucial. The AIO’s strategic plan and where it is within that strategic plan are even more important considerations.

Most naval units arrive on the map 2 years after they start production and are converted into land CV equivalents that arrive in those future turns. Indeed, the entire list of arriving reinforcements is a distribution of absolute land CVs that arrive in future turns. The AIO applies to that distribution a weighting scheme that is a function of time. The weights range from 0 to 100 percent.

Given a known or estimated stream of build points for the next X turns, they can be converted into absolute CVs that arrive in future turns. The number of absolute CVs they produce can be determined for each future turn. Build infantry and they generate CVs early. Build naval units and the CV values arrive much later. However, everything comes down to land CVs. The navy is there to transport and support the land army (and resources) and/or to prevent the same by enemy navies. The air force is only there to support the land army (plus strategic bombing) and/or to prevent the same by enemy air forces. The value of naval and air units are converted into land unit CVs. Even different types of land units are converted into standard infantry CVs (with 4 movement points). Converting other land units CVs into infantry CVs is based on their combat advantages (e.g., ENG), or the number of reorganizations they provide (e.g., HQs). It is messy, but it produces a universal metric.

At the end of the production phase, the Manufacturing Council reports the average CV value/build point for the turn. This average is based on the resulting stream of land equivalent CVs, after weighting them by time of arrival. Based on the current turn's CV distribution for future turns, the AIO projects a similar distribution for the next turn (starting one turn later) and applies the weights to that arriving CV stream. Continuing the process for remaining future years lets the AIO estimate the CV/BP for all future turns. From the CV/BP the AIO calculates the CV/resource point for the present and all future turns.

Based on the most recent production phase, the AIO calculates the value of an individual build point (BP) in terms of CVs. From that the AIO knows the value of successful strategic bombing and submarine warfare. The AIO also knows the value of a resource point (assuming it can be used in production). These may be modified if the resource points can not be used immediately because of factory constraints. Capturing factories works the same way. The value of evacuating factories is a trade off between the lost build points during the time they are out of production versus the risk of losing them completely times the number of turns remaining in the game after they are lost. Note that the value of a BP is determined separately for each major power

The main concept of this section is that each build point, resource point, and factory is worth the average CVs it can be used to produce.

2.7 Transportation Lines and Supply
Protecting convoys and controlling sea areas are first evaluated in terms of their necessity for transporting resources to factories. The cost of a convoy pipeline capacity being reduced by one convoy is measured in terms of both the convoy unit that is lost plus: the lost of the average CV/BP times the number of turns it will take to restore the convoy pipeline to full capacity. The value of rail hexes that connect a resource to a factory (e.g., in the USSR) is handled the same way. If 3 resources cannot reach a factory because the rail line is cut, then that is only slightly less expensive than having three convoys sunk. Of course, the value of each rail hex depends on it being part of a functioning rail line. This means that the CV value is associated with the rail line, and an individual rail hex is important if and only if it keeps the rail line intact. Rail lines also have additional value if they are needed to evacuate factories, maintain supply, and/or transport units by rail.

Murmansk, or any hex (e.g., a port) or sea area that is an essential part of a supply line, has the worth of the supplies that are being transported. This applies to both resources and units. The AIO also assesses the effect of being out of supply and not being able to transport units to the front.

Keeping units in supply is another function performed by transportation lines. Putting units out of supply reduces their CV directly if they are disorganized. The benefit of putting enemy units out of supply equals the changes in their CV values multiplied by how long they will be out of supply. Even organized units, when out of supply, are modified as if their mobility were zero, since moving would cause them to become disorganized. Units that are out of supply are both more vulnerable to attack and also unable to make attacks. Being out of supply at the end of a turn can at times compound the problem by denying disorganized units the ability to reorganize.

2.8 Time, Actions, and Activity Limits
There are two basic units of time in WIF: turns and impulses. Most measurements are in turns. But when the AIO moves units around on the map it’s in impulses. For example, how many impulses will it take to move a unit from its current position to another position? For naval units this is the equivalent of turns, since naval units can only move once per turn. Land and air units can relocate once per impulse and travel quite far in a single turn if that turn has 6 impulses per side. Therefore the AIO measures time in terms of impulses for moving land and air units.

For participating in combat, air units are available only once per turn. Land and naval units may be available more than that if their combats are successful or if they are on the defense and just sitting there. Air units can participate in a series of combat rounds during one subphase of an impulse but essentially they are one-and-done during a turn. This means that the number of combat impulses per turn for an air or a naval unit is one, and for a land unit, some number greater than one. The land unit’s number is based on its probability of continuing success.

From these facts the AIO measures: the maximum number of naval moves that might be wanted during a turn, the maximum number of air moves for attacks, plus rebases, and a rough estimate of the number of land moves and attacks desired. The last can be a very large number if the AIO is engaged in a major land offense. Spreading these numbers out over the likely number of impulses remaining in a turn lets the AIO evaluate its ability to accommodate the needs of the Air Marshal, the Admiralty, and the Field Marshals in terms of moves and attacks. The Joint Chiefs of Staff lets each of these decision makers know the number of moves and attacks he can expect for the rest of that turn. The decision makers then incorporate that information into their evaluations of the cost of undertaking various offenses and repositioning units under their command.

This transforms the value of time from turns and impulses into land moves, land attacks, air missions, naval moves, and rail moves! For the individual decision maker these availability numbers serve as constraints on what is feasible to accomplish in the rest of the turn. Time doesn’t really have value under this system, it is simply a constraint.

But using principles from linear programming, when a problem is viewed from a different perspective, constraints can be measured as resources. If each constraint were loosened just a bit, how much more could be done? In game terms, the Joint Chiefs of Staff asks each subordinate decision maker to report how much more he would expect to accomplish, in terms of CVs, if he were given one more land attack, one more air mission, or one more naval move.

Like all “shadow prices” these calculations of the worth of, say, a land attack, have limited applicability. Indeed, the value is calculated for the entire range of possible land attacks from 1 through N. Each additional land attack might have a different CV value. This means that the JCS develops a distribution of CV values for each of the 5 constrained activities: air missions, naval moves, rail moves, land moves, and land attacks. By knowing the value of each of the activity limits they calculate action choices. So, ultimately, the AIO calculates the value of land, naval, air, and combined actions in terms of CVs. From those numbers it gets the CV value of an impulse and turn.

2.9 Hexes
The ultimate goal is to be able to evaluate the risk of losing units in combat versus the gain of capturing hexes close to enemy capitals, resources and factories. There has to be very strong motivation in terms of CVs for the AIO, playing Germany, to drive on Paris and Moscow and to contemplate invading Britain. Victory cities only play a role in the Grand Strategist decision making.

All of this leads to the value of land hexes. Now in and of themselves, hexes usually have no value. The exceptions are the specific hexes mentioned in the paragraphs above (capitals, resources, factories, rail lines, and victory hexes) and to that list we can add sources of supply when supply is hard to come by. But even the most mundane of hexes can rise in importance when the battle lines draw near. It is as part of a front line that hexes achieve their primary importance. Looking at Germany versus France in 1940, Germany versus the USSR in 1941, and China versus Japan in any year, the outstanding characteristic of the land combat is where the front lines are. What exactly is the value of a hex in the front line?

When on defense, we can count hexes defended by rivers as worth double “the average CV for the front line” since they effectively double defensive strength. We can count forest hexes as half the enemy’s average tactical air CV since they cut ground strikes and ground support in half. We give cities a bonus for giving the defender the choice of combat tables. We penalize clear hexes if the enemy has armor capable of overrunning our weaker units and/or gaining an armor bonus. And there are similar adjustments for other types of hex and hexside terrain. But when on the attack, all of these change in importance. It is better to attack weak hexes and force the enemy to abandon strong ones because of the threat to his lines of communications.

For both attackers and defenders, maintaining a continuous line is very important. Only under unusual circumstances can the goal of maintaining a continuous line be put aside. Holes in a front line enable enemy to ooze, slip, or charge through the line, threatening the supply lines of units in the front line. Therefore, a porous front line costs CVs by means of calculating units becoming out of supply or isolated.

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
Theaters of Operations (TO)
• Asia: Urals to Pacific Ocean, Mongolia, China.
• Europe: Northern Europe to the Urals, North Atlantic, eastern North America.
• Mediterranean: Mediterranean Sea, Black Sea, all countries that border same (except the USSR).
• South Atlantic: South Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, all countries that border same (e.g., western Africa, and eastern South and Central America).
• Indian: Indian Ocean, Red Sea, Southern Ocean, all countries that border same (e.g., eastern Africa, western Australia).
• Northeast Pacific: Hawaii to Alaska and the North American west coast.
• South Pacific: eastern Australia to western South America.
• Western Pacific: Kamchatka to Singapore to the Marshals.

Areas of Operations (AO)
Within each TO are Areas of Operations (AO), which come in 3 types:
1. All sea (wet)
2. All land (dry)
3. Coastal hexes (damp)

Here is my first pass on AOs for each TO.
• Asia: central USSR, Siberia/Mongolia, China inland, USSR Pacific coast.
• Europe: eastern North America (inland and coast), North Atlantic Ocean, Murmansk pipeline, European invasions (Bay of Biscay, North Sea, Baltic Sea, and coastal hexes for same), western Europe, Scandinavia, eastern Europe (up to the Urals).
• Mediterranean: Western Med, Italian Coast, Eastern Med, Black Sea, coastal hexes for each of those 4 sea areas.

quote:

• South Atlantic: eastern Central/South America, South Atlantic, western Africa.

quote:

• Indian: Red Sea, Indian Ocean, Southern Ocean, eastern Africa, Middle East (excluding countries with a Mediterranean coastline), India, western side of Southeast Asia, western side of Australia.

quote:

• Northeast Pacific: north eastern Pacific Ocean, western North America, Alaska, Hawaii,
• South Pacific: southern Pacific Ocean, eastern Australia, New Zealand, islands in the South Pacific, western Central and South America.

quote:

• Western Pacific: Western Pacific (including various seas from Singapore to Rabaul), Chinese coast, eastern side of Southeast Asia, French Indochina, Japan, Borneo, New Guinea, Marshals, and other island groups in that area of the Pacific Ocean.

quote:

Sea Area Groups and Land Regions
AOs are broken down farther, with Wet AOs composed of Sea Area Groups (SAG), Damp AOs composed of coastal hexes (Regions), and Dry AOs composed of all land hexes (Regions). A dry AO is defined by one or more countries, or regions within a country. A damp AO is defined by the sea area it abuts and the country owning the coastal hexes.

For example, the West Med AO consists of these Regions:
• Western Med,
• Spanish-West Med coastline,
• Gibraltar,
• Algeria-West Med coastline,
• Libya-West Med coastline,
• Tunisia-West Med coastline,
• Malta,
• Sardinia/Corsica-West Med coastline,
• French-West Med coastline,
• Italy-West Med coastline.

The intent here is to have an exhaustive and mutually exclusive definition of TOs, AOs, SAGs and Regions. These will encompass all 70,200 hexes without any overlap.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
Theaters of Operations (TO)
• Asia: Urals to Pacific Ocean, Mongolia, China.
• Europe: Northern Europe to the Urals, North Atlantic, eastern North America.
• Mediterranean: Mediterranean Sea, Black Sea, all countries that border same (except the USSR).
• South Atlantic: South Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, all countries that border same (e.g., western Africa, and eastern South and Central America).
• Indian: Indian Ocean, Red Sea, Southern Ocean, all countries that border same (e.g., eastern Africa, western Australia).
• Northeast Pacific: Hawaii to Alaska and the North American west coast.
• South Pacific: eastern Australia to western South America.
• Western Pacific: Kamchatka to Singapore to the Marshals.

Areas of Operations (AO)
Within each TO are Areas of Operations (AO), which come in 3 types:
1. All sea (wet)
2. All land (dry)
3. Coastal hexes (damp)

Here is my first pass on AOs for each TO.
• Asia: central USSR, Siberia/Mongolia, China inland, USSR Pacific coast.
• Europe: eastern North America (inland and coast), North Atlantic Ocean, Murmansk pipeline, European invasions (Bay of Biscay, North Sea, Baltic Sea, and coastal hexes for same), western Europe, Scandinavia, eastern Europe (up to the Urals).
• Mediterranean: Western Med, Italian Coast, Eastern Med, Black Sea, coastal hexes for each of those 4 sea areas.

Plus all Italy, not only coastal hexes. Except if you count more than 1 hex in depth inland for coastal hexes in which case Italy is already contained in this AO.
Also, I'd include the Cape St Vincent and the Red Sea Sea Areas in this TO because typically they are sea areas that are contested by countries who have something to do in the Mediterranean TO.

quote:

• South Atlantic: eastern Central/South America, South Atlantic, western Africa.

Up to Cape Basin to the East , and up to the Drake Passage to the west ? Looks good. Here are fought the Raiders war.

quote:

• Indian: Red Sea, Indian Ocean, Southern Ocean, eastern Africa, Middle East (excluding countries with a Mediterranean coastline), India, western side of Southeast Asia, western side of Australia.

I'd include the Red Sea in the Mediterranean TO. The reason is that you wage war in the Red Sea because of ambitions in Egypt, not as an entry point to the Indian Ocean. For me the Indian Ocea TO begins in the Arabian Sea.

quote:

• Northeast Pacific: north eastern Pacific Ocean, western North America, Alaska, Hawaii,
• South Pacific: southern Pacific Ocean, eastern Australia, New Zealand, islands in the South Pacific, western Central and South America.

Maybe this is too large ? I would see it go up to South Pacific / East Polynesia sea areas, but I would have the 5 sea areas to the east (Austral, East Pacific, Gulf of Panama, Peruvian Coast & Chilean Coast as well as coastal countries) as another TO. Another Raider's land.

quote:

• Western Pacific: Western Pacific (including various seas from Singapore to Rabaul), Chinese coast, eastern side of Southeast Asia, French Indochina, Japan, Borneo, New Guinea, Marshals, and other island groups in that area of the Pacific Ocean.

Typically this is the Japan playground.

quote:

Sea Area Groups and Land Regions
AOs are broken down farther, with Wet AOs composed of Sea Area Groups (SAG), Damp AOs composed of coastal hexes (Regions), and Dry AOs composed of all land hexes (Regions). A dry AO is defined by one or more countries, or regions within a country. A damp AO is defined by the sea area it abuts and the country owning the coastal hexes.

For example, the West Med AO consists of these Regions:
• Western Med,
• Spanish-West Med coastline,
• Gibraltar,
• Algeria-West Med coastline,
• Libya-West Med coastline,
• Tunisia-West Med coastline,
• Malta,
• Sardinia/Corsica-West Med coastline,
• French-West Med coastline,
• Italy-West Med coastline.

The intent here is to have an exhaustive and mutually exclusive definition of TOs, AOs, SAGs and Regions. These will encompass all 70,200 hexes without any overlap.

You make me want to start a spreadsheet with all the countries & sea areas and the TO, AO and SAG they are in !!!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
I believe the Red Sea should be part of the Indian TO. This mainly has to do with naval units reaching the sea area. Given that Suez and Gibraltar act as valves on accessing the Mediterranean, sea areas outside of those blockage points should be separate.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
I believe the Red Sea should be part of the Indian TO. This mainly has to do with naval units reaching the sea area. Given that Suez and Gibraltar act as valves on accessing the Mediterranean, sea areas outside of those blockage points should be separate.

This is not a reason.
If the Med is closed, then the Cape St Vincent is the nearest place from the Med from where campaign in the Med. Same for the Red Sea for the eastern approach.

Being involved in a campaign in Egypt in my current Vassal game, I have the Italians flying every turn in the Red Sea from near Cairo to help cutting the supply of the last British presence in Egypt, helped in that by German Raiders sailing from ports in Mozambique & Timor into the Red Sea and the Arabian Sea. If the Red Sea is not in the Mediterranean TO, how is the AIO going to think about assigning Italians planes from the Med TO to the Red Sea to cut supply to the British Italy is fighting in Egypt ?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
I believe the Red Sea should be part of the Indian TO. This mainly has to do with naval units reaching the sea area. Given that Suez and Gibraltar act as valves on accessing the Mediterranean, sea areas outside of those blockage points should be separate.

This is not a reason.
If the Med is closed, then the Cape St Vincent is the nearest place from the Med from where campaign in the Med. Same for the Red Sea for the eastern approach.

Being involved in a campaign in Egypt in my current Vassal game, I have the Italians flying every turn in the Red Sea from near Cairo to help cutting the supply of the last British presence in Egypt, helped in that by German Raiders sailing from ports in Mozambique & Timor into the Red Sea and the Arabian Sea. If the Red Sea is not in the Mediterranean TO, how is the AIO going to think about assigning Italians planes from the Med TO to the Red Sea to cut supply to the British Italy is fighting in Egypt ?

There are always going to be 'issues' at the borders of the TOs. Singapore comes to mind.

In your example, the Italian air units are based in the Med. That they are flying outside their TO is no big deal. They are assigned to the Med TO and are 'working' to help the goals of the Italians in that TO.

The naval units are based in the correct TO (Indian) for making their moves into the Red Sea. The decision makers in the Indian TO would have to have as one of their 'tasks' control of the Red Sea, in support of the Med TO.

Other cases that come up where there will need to be coordination between TOs is the creation and maintenance of pipelines. But all these coordination problems are handled at the higher/global level by the Admiralty. They pass tasks/priorities down to the decision makers at the TO level.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

MWIF AI Opponent Where, Who, and What

I have always understood that these are the 3 big questions for the AI Opponent (AIO): where on the map should the AIO place its units and what should those units do once they get there. I have worked out detailed answers for who and what, by defining an organizational structure for decision making and compiling a detailed list of tasks for each decision makers. In working with Peter on the setups for both the minor countries and the major powers, and on the advice of Ian concerning the value of an abstract topology of the map, I have put some more thought into the question of ‘Where’.

All 3 questions are interrelated since the definition of the size of the area dictates the size of the military force and also what the force is capable of achieving. For this document I have started with the where, though I could just as easily have started with either of the other two questions.

I. Where: Geographical Breakdown of the World Map

Here is what I propose for the geographical breakdown of the World Map, which consists of 70,200 hexes, 83 sea areas, 252 countries, and ~5100 coastal hexes.

Theaters of Operations (TO)
• Asia: Urals to Pacific Ocean, Mongolia, China.
• Europe: Northern Europe to the Urals, North Atlantic, eastern North America.
• Mediterranean: Mediterranean Sea, Black Sea, all countries that border same (except the USSR).
• South Atlantic: South Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, all countries that border same (e.g., western Africa, and eastern South and Central America).
• Indian: Indian Ocean, Red Sea, Southern Ocean, all countries that border same (e.g., eastern Africa, western Australia).
• Northeast Pacific: Hawaii to Alaska and the North American west coast.
• South Pacific: eastern Australia to western South America.
• Western Pacific: Kamchatka to Singapore to the Marshals.

Areas of Operations (AO)
Within each TO are Areas of Operations (AO), which come in 3 types:
1. All sea (wet)
2. All land (dry)
3. Coastal hexes (damp)

Here is my first pass on AOs for each TO.
• Asia: central USSR, Siberia/Mongolia, China inland, USSR Pacific coast.
• Europe: eastern North America (inland and coast), North Atlantic Ocean, Murmansk pipeline, European invasions (Bay of Biscay, North Sea, Baltic Sea, and coastal hexes for same), western Europe, Scandinavia, eastern Europe (up to the Urals).
• Mediterranean: Western Med, Italian Coast, Eastern Med, Black Sea, coastal hexes for each of those 4 sea areas.
• South Atlantic: eastern Central/South America, South Atlantic, western Africa.
• Indian: Red Sea, Indian Ocean, Southern Ocean, eastern Africa, Middle East (excluding countries with a Mediterranean coastline), India, western side of Southeast Asia, western side of Australia.
• Northeast Pacific: north eastern Pacific Ocean, western North America, Alaska, Hawaii,
• South Pacific: southern Pacific Ocean, eastern Australia, New Zealand, islands in the South Pacific, western Central and South America.
• Western Pacific: Western Pacific (including various seas from Singapore to Rabaul), Chinese coast, eastern side of Southeast Asia, French Indochina, Japan, Borneo, New Guinea, Marshals, and other island groups in that area of the Pacific Ocean.

Sea Area Groups and Land Regions
AOs are broken down farther, with Wet AOs composed of Sea Area Groups (SAG), Damp AOs composed of coastal hexes (Regions), and Dry AOs composed of all land hexes (Regions). A dry AO is defined by one or more countries, or regions within a country. A damp AO is defined by the sea area it abuts and the country owning the coastal hexes.

For example, the West Med AO consists of these Regions:
• Western Med,
• Spanish-West Med coastline,
• Gibraltar,
• Algeria-West Med coastline,
• Libya-West Med coastline,
• Tunisia-West Med coastline,
• Malta,
• Sardinia/Corsica-West Med coastline,
• French-West Med coastline,
• Italy-West Med coastline.

The intent here is to have an exhaustive and mutually exclusive definition of TOs, AOs, SAGs and Regions.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Patrice,

In reply to a couple of the other points you raised:

1 - Yes all of Italy would be in the Med TO, and also all of Greece and Yugoslavia.

2 - I would prefer to keep all the Southern Pacific as a single TO. Breaking it into AOs along the lines you gave would be good to do.

quote:

ORIGINAL: peskpesk

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

MWIF AI Opponent Where, Who, and What

I have always understood that these are the 3 big questions for the AI Opponent (AIO): where on the map should the AIO place its units and what should those units do once they get there. I have worked out detailed answers for who and what, by defining an organizational structure for decision making and compiling a detailed list of tasks for each decision makers. In working with Peter on the setups for both the minor countries and the major powers, and on the advice of Ian concerning the value of an abstract topology of the map, I have put some more thought into the question of ‘Where’.

All 3 questions are interrelated since the definition of the size of the area dictates the size of the military force and also what the force is capable of achieving. For this document I have started with the where, though I could just as easily have started with either of the other two questions.

I. Where: Geographical Breakdown of the World Map

Here is what I propose for the geographical breakdown of the World Map, which consists of 70,200 hexes, 83 sea areas, 252 countries, and ~5100 coastal hexes.

Theaters of Operations (TO)
• Asia: Urals to Pacific Ocean, Mongolia, China.
• Europe: Northern Europe to the Urals, North Atlantic, eastern North America.
• Mediterranean: Mediterranean Sea, Black Sea, all countries that border same (except the USSR).
• South Atlantic: South Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, all countries that border same (e.g., western Africa, and eastern South and Central America).
• Indian: Indian Ocean, Red Sea, Southern Ocean, all countries that border same (e.g., eastern Africa, western Australia).
• Northeast Pacific: Hawaii to Alaska and the North American west coast.
• South Pacific: eastern Australia to western South America.
• Western Pacific: Kamchatka to Singapore to the Marshals.

Areas of Operations (AO)
Within each TO are Areas of Operations (AO), which come in 3 types:
1. All sea (wet)
2. All land (dry)
3. Coastal hexes (damp)

Here is my first pass on AOs for each TO.
• Asia: central USSR, Siberia/Mongolia, China inland, USSR Pacific coast.
• Europe: eastern North America (inland and coast), North Atlantic Ocean, Murmansk pipeline, European invasions (Bay of Biscay, North Sea, Baltic Sea, and coastal hexes for same), western Europe, Scandinavia, eastern Europe (up to the Urals).
• Mediterranean: Western Med, Italian Coast, Eastern Med, Black Sea, coastal hexes for each of those 4 sea areas.
• South Atlantic: eastern Central/South America, South Atlantic, western Africa.
• Indian: Red Sea, Indian Ocean, Southern Ocean, eastern Africa, Middle East (excluding countries with a Mediterranean coastline), India, western side of Southeast Asia, western side of Australia.
• Northeast Pacific: north eastern Pacific Ocean, western North America, Alaska, Hawaii,
• South Pacific: southern Pacific Ocean, eastern Australia, New Zealand, islands in the South Pacific, western Central and South America.
• Western Pacific: Western Pacific (including various seas from Singapore to Rabaul), Chinese coast, eastern side of Southeast Asia, French Indochina, Japan, Borneo, New Guinea, Marshals, and other island groups in that area of the Pacific Ocean.

Sea Area Groups and Land Regions
AOs are broken down farther, with Wet AOs composed of Sea Area Groups (SAG), Damp AOs composed of coastal hexes (Regions), and Dry AOs composed of all land hexes (Regions). A dry AO is defined by one or more countries, or regions within a country. A damp AO is defined by the sea area it abuts and the country owning the coastal hexes.

For example, the West Med AO consists of these Regions:
• Western Med,
• Spanish-West Med coastline,
• Gibraltar,
• Algeria-West Med coastline,
• Libya-West Med coastline,
• Tunisia-West Med coastline,
• Malta,
• Sardinia/Corsica-West Med coastline,
• French-West Med coastline,
• Italy-West Med coastline.

The intent here is to have an exhaustive and mutually exclusive definition of TOs, AOs, SAGs and Regions.

Steve how will the seam/joint between different TO/AO be handled?
There are many examples that needs to be handled ex If I under stand your proposal Europe will be split between Europe and Mediterranean TO. Lets say the Germany plans to attack Spain, but the German Force in France is in the Europe TO and Spain is in the Mediterranean TO. So the calculations of the sides force strength in the Mediterranean TO should to some cases take into consideration forces in a other TO, maybe the bordering TOs closest AO? In this case western Europe.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Patrice,

In reply to a couple of the other points you raised:

1 - Yes all of Italy would be in the Med TO, and also all of Greece and Yugoslavia.

2 - I would prefer to keep all the Southern Pacific as a single TO. Breaking it into AOs along the lines you gave would be good to do.

1 - I agree for Greece, but not for Yugoslavia.

Yugoslavia is more in the Europe TO, in the Balkans AO. This is an area that is more in relation with the war in Europe rather than in the war in the Med. Its only relation with the war in the Med, is that it is the stagging areas of the forces that will attack Greece, but except this, they are not in relation with the war in the Med. Even as an allied come back in Europe from the Med, it is the worst of the places to do that come back. Little ports, little rails, poor terrain. Coming back from the Med into Europe through Yugoslavia is the worst error the Med AIO can do to help its Europe mate.

2 - I think that this is OK. The area is just very large, which will be a pain to have it covered by cruisers when raiders will come by. Having it in 2 separate areas would have been better, because the east part of it will only be threatened when there is a raider in the area while the west part of it will be threatenened all the time the Japanese are in Truk & the Marshalls.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Incy

You might want to consider using overlapping TA/AO/Regions. Not just a single hexrow or two, but let the areas stretch out to hexes that naturally affects them tactically (i.e 1 or possibly 2 landmoves into neighbouring area). Possibly with 'soft' limits, i.e. some hexes are not fully/100% considered part of areas, but are given a lesser weight.

This means units could be part of calculations for several areas. Let any applicable calculations be done, and then priority (i.e. which commander decides) can be selected according to a combination of strategic and tactical needs (i.e. you can consider induvidual score within each TA/AO/Region, but you'll also consider which TA/AO/Region is currently the most important strategically, and let that TA/AO/Regions control the forces to a larger extent.

This can also be a good way of arranging cooperations between commands. If helping the neighbouring command is a priority, just
a) move forces into the shared zone and voila command gets switched automagically
b) strategically move inte neighbouring command

btw, aircraft, particularily those with long range, will have to receive special attention as they will project their effect across regions (and can more easily be moved between regions)

quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian

I read most of that but have always wondered this about the AI command ... how will it handle multiple-impulse or multi-turn operations without constantly evaluating threat assessments resulting in a change that negates activities previously performed? For example consider an end-around amphibious invasion such as Anzio. First you have to control the seas before sending out fragile landing craft, so a naval impulse is selected to deploy adequate naval assets. Then the Grand Strategist directs the Commander-in-Chief to call an air impulse because the overall strategic priority is a bombing campaign over Germany and several FTRs just departed Germany, rebasing towards the Italian coast, so the bombers suddenly have much easier targets in front of them. Meanwhile the German forces on the ground see the AMPHs offshore and reinforce the beaches by reorganizing railed-in reinforcements....which could have been avoided by just landing on the second impulse and bombing Germany later in the turn.

Similarly, human players have a hard time maintaining the discipline to take naval and land impulses instead of two Combined impulses when they get too focused on a given theater just because a seemingly juicy target is in front of them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Thsi is resolved by the Joint Chiefs, see below. #1 after performing #2. All of #1 for the turn are decided at the beginning of the turn, based on a somewhat pessimistic assessment from #2. You're asking about the tradeoff between #8 and #12. As you noted #12 requires mulitple impulses so those have to be allotted if the decision to invade is made. There could be multiple impulses required for a successful strategic bombing turn too. Or for a successful land campaign, and so on.

The really tricky bit here is when the opponent does something unexpectedly brilliant (or has exceptionally good luck) or foolish (or has exceptionally bad luck). The assessments made at the beginning of the turn may have to be reevaluated. Well, the AIO will always reevaluate them, so what I really mean here is that if the situation changes dramatically, then the decision to change a plan in mid-execution might be best. As I said, it's tricky.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Incy

You might want to consider using overlapping TA/AO/Regions. Not just a single hexrow or two, but let the areas stretch out to hexes that naturally affects them tactically (i.e 1 or possibly 2 landmoves into neighbouring area). Possibly with 'soft' limits, i.e. some hexes are not fully/100% considered part of areas, but are given a lesser weight. 

This means units could be part of calculations for several areas. Let any applicable calculations be done, and then priority (i.e. which commander decides) can be selected according to a combination of strategic and tactical needs (i.e. you can consider induvidual score within each TA/AO/Region, but you'll also consider which TA/AO/Region is currently the most important strategically, and let that TA/AO/Regions control the forces to a larger extent.

This can also be a good way of arranging cooperations between commands. If helping the neighbouring command is a priority, just
a) move forces into the shared zone and voila command gets switched automagically
b) strategically move inte neighbouring command

btw, aircraft, particularily those with long range, will have to receive special attention as they will project their effect across regions (and can more easily be moved between regions)