RE: AI for MWiF

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: AI for MWiF - China

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> AI Opponent Discussion >> RE: AI for MWiF - China

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

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: AI for MWiF - China - 5/6/2007 10:47:10 PM

paulderynck

Posts: 8201
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline

quote:

Playing in CWIF the Chineese theatre have been mostly about moving your units around the other guy trying to cut his supply or outflanking him, actual battles without overwhelming odds was few.

Very unhistorical all in all.

I'm no expert but the above is how I picture the war between Japan and China. In WIFFE a major battle in an impulse involves 6 corps against 2 which interprets as a two week battle between two armies "in the real world". Were there really as many major battles fought between China and Japan as we typically see in a game of WIFFE?

(in reply to c92nichj)

Post #: 61

RE: AI for MWiF - China - 5/6/2007 11:47:27 PM

c92nichj

Posts: 440
Joined: 1/14/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

quote:

Playing in CWIF the Chineese theatre have been mostly about moving your units around the other guy trying to cut his supply or outflanking him, actual battles without overwhelming odds was few.

Very unhistorical all in all.

I'm no expert but the above is how I picture the war between Japan and China. In WIFFE a major battle in an impulse involves 6 corps against 2 which interprets as a two week battle between two armies "in the real world". Were there really as many major battles fought between China and Japan as we typically see in a game of WIFFE?

I'm no expert either but as I understood the war it was not much action going on.
Advance building HQ's by the japaneese to be able to keep more of his units in supply was seen in two of my three CWIF games, never in a WIFFE game.

Encircled armies(4-5 corps) permanently set of of supply was seen in my games both Chineese and Japaneese.

Flank and outrun your enemy was the major part of the game, unit density was to low for anything else.

To compare with WIFFE it plays quite like a campaign in the middle east, low unit density and often units outof supply both so is your enemy so not many fights, more moving into objectives unopposed.

(in reply to paulderynck)

Post #: 62

RE: AI for MWiF - China - 5/7/2007 12:42:50 AM

Froonp

Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

quote:

Playing in CWIF the Chineese theatre have been mostly about moving your units around the other guy trying to cut his supply or outflanking him, actual battles without overwhelming odds was few.

Very unhistorical all in all.

I'm no expert but the above is how I picture the war between Japan and China. In WIFFE a major battle in an impulse involves 6 corps against 2 which interprets as a two week battle between two armies "in the real world". Were there really as many major battles fought between China and Japan as we typically see in a game of WIFFE?

I think that historically, the war in China was characterized by the lack of will from either side to attack the other side.
Only at the end of the war (1944) did the Japanese pushed out from the Wuhan area, but for most of the war, nothing happened.
Players in the WiF Community have devised means to reflect this in WiF FE, but these are unfortunately out of scope for MWiF.

(in reply to paulderynck)

Post #: 63

RE: AI for MWiF - China - 5/8/2007 5:15:11 AM

paulderynck

Posts: 8201
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline

quote:

Advance building HQ's by the japaneese to be able to keep more of his units in supply was seen in two of my three CWIF games, never in a WIFFE game.

Encircled armies(4-5 corps) permanently set of of supply was seen in my games both Chineese and Japaneese.

Flank and outrun your enemy was the major part of the game, unit density was to low for anything else.

To compare with WIFFE it plays quite like a campaign in the middle east, low unit density and often units outof supply both so is your enemy so not many fights, more moving into objectives unopposed.

I guess what I'm saying is that we know that because of the change in scale, MWIF in the Pacific will be a different game then WIFFE is. I think you're right in saying that CWIF (which keeps the European scale as well) is a better predictor of what it will be like.

Perhaps the end result will even be "more historical" and personally, I'm beginning to leave behind the urge to have everything identical to WIFFE and look forward to learning the intricacies of MWIF in the Pacific before my opponents do.

Mind you if I'm playing Japan, being forced into Land impulses late in the game because the war in China is going to heck in a handbasket ...scares the heck out of me.

(in reply to c92nichj)

Post #: 64

RE: AI for MWiF - China - 7/7/2007 3:00:29 AM

coregames

Posts: 470
Joined: 8/12/2004
Status: offline

A few thoughts about China:

1. Coordinating specific CC and NC movements is important when one has to take up slack for the other. This is a relatively common occurence, when the Japanese have attacked along the line and forces must be shifted North or South to deal with it. The less-pressed Chinese faction can take up the vacated end of the line when such a shift happens. Unified scale will make this even more of an issue. It's at these moments that the Russian AIO and the Chinese AIO need to be in agreement, to maximize the benefits of the transition and avoid mistakes.

2. I mentioned this in the Japan AIO thread, and it's appropriate here as well. Assume the Japanese and the Russians are at war. If the CC can gain control of a resource in Manchuria, the Russians can conquer it without lapsing the war. Japan hates it when that happens, as it will probably lead to the CC taking Pyong Yang as well, allowing the Russians to conquer Korea also while staying at war. Once the U.S. is in the war, strategic bombing and sub warfare make a continuing Russian war very painful for the Japanese, well worth the commitment unless Russia is very hard pressed by the Germans. No special coordination between AIOs is required for this, unless the Nationalists can move North to free up Communists for a drive on the Manchurian resource (see thought 1 above).

3. Fiinally, what if the Chinese have an OC later in the war, and the opportunity pops up to spend it on Mao? This would require agreement as well.

_____________________________

"The creative combination lays bare the presumption of a lie." -- Lasker

Keith Henderson

(in reply to Froonp)

Post #: 65

RE: AI for MWiF - China - 7/7/2007 9:41:08 AM

Froonp

Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: coregames

A few thoughts about China:

1. Coordinating specific CC and NC movements is important when one has to take up slack for the other. This is a relatively common occurence, when the Japanese have attacked along the line and forces must be shifted North or South to deal with it. The less-pressed Chinese faction can take up the vacated end of the line when such a shift happens. Unified scale will make this even more of an issue. It's at these moments that the Russian AIO and the Chinese AIO need to be in agreement, to maximize the benefits of the transition and avoid mistakes.

Maybe I'm wrong, but wasn't CC & NC supposed to be the same AIO ?
CC units are played on Russian activity limits, but still are Chinese units played by the Chinese Player, am I wrong by RAW ?

(in reply to coregames)

Post #: 66

RE: AI for MWiF - China - 7/7/2007 9:56:44 AM

Froonp

Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp
Maybe I'm wrong, but wasn't CC & NC supposed to be the same AIO ?
CC units are played on Russian activity limits, but still are Chinese units played by the Chinese Player, am I wrong by RAW ?

Seems that I'm wrong.
24.1.2 indicates that CC are always controlled by the Russian player.

(in reply to Froonp)

Post #: 67

RE: AI for MWiF - China - 7/7/2007 11:24:04 AM

Shannon V. OKeets

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp
Maybe I'm wrong, but wasn't CC & NC supposed to be the same AIO ?
CC units are played on Russian activity limits, but still are Chinese units played by the Chinese Player, am I wrong by RAW ?

Seems that I'm wrong.
24.1.2 indicates that CC are always controlled by the Russian player.

I am still unsure how this will work out. The Communist Chinese activity limits are restricted by the USSR but oil is shared with the Nationalist Chinese. It might not matter all that much since neither of them can provide air support to the Communist Chinese. Coordinating the land moves is the crucial bit - and that is done by the AIO using Field Marshals.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Froonp)

Post #: 68

RE: AI for MWiF - China - 7/7/2007 3:35:23 PM

dale1066

Posts: 108
Joined: 6/23/2007
Status: offline

Having messed around with CWif in this area and found that given usual luck with weather and combat die rolls I'm coming to the conclusion that what happened historically ie not a lot

may well be the best strategy for the japanese player. My thoughts for what they are worth are below

Should be said I use the 1d10 cbt tables (is the 2d10 ? table more or less bloody?)

Pushing the chinese army back into the mountains and capturing Chenh chow, Cheng sha and Naning by the end of '40 seems doable and capturing and using the two resources associated with those cities is also ok (it takes quite a bit of careful garrisoning to keep on getting them ) Taking Sian in Cwif seems difficult if both chinese players set up strong in cities and mountains around cheng chang. By the time the weather is good up north japan can be busy else where and also the CC are increased in strength.

With reasonable skill and luck the chinese army should not take too many losses just gars and the two mil may be the odd inf and div that can be fairly easily replaced (never used the warlord units) even if they come back a bit too far away. (not such an issue with the new cities)

Flip side is japanese losses, It seems difficult, or at best time consuming, to get really good attacks against strongly defended (two chinese units + div ) hexes as with the poor japanese ground strike values of 2 for almost all early units at best you get the equivelent of a 4 or 5 to one assault and that means some attacks will cause losses. Care must be taken as even the chinese units can mount a good attack against an unorganaised non-elite unit that has been caught out of supply buy a surprise weather roll. Over the course of several turns the chinese player will get some good luck at some point and can lash out against a careless or unlucky japan

Since you can't just melt around all the chinese strongpoints ( to get the resources out by rail means certain hexes must be taken) japan must take losses in this period. So how many losses (don't forget to include the precious saved oil thats required to reorganise the japanese air, hqs and transports) can the japanese player afford to take before the benefits of these two resources which may be the only end product of a lot of effort are wasted.

There is also an interesting decision is what to do down south in 40/41. Do you try and braech the mountains to take kwei-yunh and chungking? Again it is doable but will incur losses and a little bit of bad luck or a misjudgement or can cause the japanese forces to be out of position when planning and executing the grab for the rest of the pacific.

As another aside has much been made of the planning for the switching in weather its usually ok in noth temperate and bad in north monsoon and vice versa so the japanese player with careful planning can maintain pressure on china continuously.

Any way getting back to the first point, maybe one strategy is to not worry about a heavy involvement in China, just be satisfied with the resources that you have and garrison correctly to ensure their safe arrival every turn. Use you initial advantage to capture the terrain to enable you to set up a strong defensive line (it would require too many units for a contiguous one) save your oil don't take many losses and prepare slowly and carefully for the really fun bit against the CW/US and NEI. Has the added advantage that the russian player will be convinced you're after Vladivostock so may keep those unit there too long and will keep him off your back in manchuria.

Oh and be on the look out for opportunities for a bored = rash chinese player who tries any fancy out flanking move to be counterattacked hard.
Or indeed a careless russian leaving opportunities to nab his resources in a swift campaign

(in reply to paulderynck)

Post #: 69

RE: AI for MWiF - China - 7/7/2007 9:22:14 PM

Shannon V. OKeets

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

Thanks. It's nice to have these additional details for when Japan's strategy in China is not all out conquest.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to dale1066)

Post #: 70

RE: AI for MWiF - China - 7/7/2007 9:56:28 PM

Zorachus99

Posts: 1066
Joined: 9/15/2000
From: Palo Alto, CA
Status: offline

When prioritizing objectives in the pacific, there are two over-arching factors I consider:

1) If the U.S. can hit japanese convoys even in a losing proposition when trading BP for BP, the results to the Japanese economy can be nearly unrecoverable, while the U.S. grows more powerful every turn.

2) The Japanese at minimum, must control every single major port adjacent to the sea zone's they can assume control of. The major ports should have extremely high value for Japanese AIO, not to mention govern defensive/offensive strategy in a sea zone.

_____________________________

Most men can survive adversity, the true test of a man's character is power. -Abraham Lincoln

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 71

RE: AI for MWiF - China - 7/8/2007 2:18:27 AM

freeboy

Posts: 9088
Joined: 5/16/2004
From: Colorado
Status: offline

Again, I have not even seen this game,
? talking about Japan, or England.. I think the land combat uses hex? What about hte sea combat? Seems the abstraction neccesitated by 2 month long turns would, even with impulses, make hex sea war odd, is it zones? that would make more sence to me with algorithmic odds of attacks and intercentions... counterattacks by air etc. perhaps I should have posted as seperate but seemed relevent.. thanks again,

(in reply to Zorachus99)

Post #: 72

RE: AI for MWiF - China - 7/8/2007 2:59:38 AM

Mziln

Posts: 1107
Joined: 2/9/2004
From: Tulsa Oklahoma
Status: offline

Welcome to the forums

For more information on the game see:

The RaW (Rules as Written) 7 Aug 04 and Scenario RTF

< Message edited by Mziln -- 7/8/2007 3:00:56 AM >

(in reply to freeboy)

Post #: 73

RE: AI for MWiF - China - 7/8/2007 4:00:52 AM

Shannon V. OKeets

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: freeboy

Again, I have not even seen this game,
? talking about Japan, or England.. I think the land combat uses hex? What about hte sea combat? Seems the abstraction neccesitated by 2 month long turns would, even with impulses, make hex sea war odd, is it zones? that would make more sence to me with algorithmic odds of attacks and intercentions... counterattacks by air etc.� perhaps I should have posted as seperate but seemed relevent.. thanks again,

I just bumped an earlier thread on Tutorial #5 - Naval Units back to the top of the forum. There is a lot of discussion in that thread but if you start at the beginning and go through just reading the posts I made on the individual 12 pages in the tutorial, I think it will provide a solid background on MWIF naval units. I still have to write the tutorial on naval combat. Sigh

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to freeboy)

Post #: 74

RE: AI for MWiF - China - 7/8/2007 12:09:35 PM

Froonp

Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99

When prioritizing objectives in the pacific, there are two over-arching factors I consider:

1)� If the U.S. can hit japanese convoys even in a losing proposition when trading BP for BP, the results to the Japanese economy can be nearly unrecoverable, while the U.S. grows more powerful every turn.�

True

quote:

2)� The Japanese at minimum, must control every single major port adjacent to the sea zone's they can assume control of.� The major ports should have extremely high value for Japanese AIO, not to mention govern defensive/offensive strategy in a sea zone.

True, but the Minor Ports too. Menado / Makassar / Legaspi come to my mind as good Minor Ports for the US to have. Especially with this "super port" counters (Naval Supply Units) that the US have, which increase the capacity of a minor port from 4 to 14 or 19 ships.

(in reply to Zorachus99)

Post #: 75

RE: AI for MWiF - China - 7/8/2007 7:36:38 PM

Zorachus99

Posts: 1066
Joined: 9/15/2000
From: Palo Alto, CA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99

When prioritizing objectives in the pacific, there are two over-arching factors I consider:

1)� If the U.S. can hit japanese convoys even in a losing proposition when trading BP for BP, the results to the Japanese economy can be nearly unrecoverable, while the U.S. grows more powerful every turn.�

True

quote:

2)� The Japanese at minimum, must control every single major port adjacent to the sea zone's they can assume control of.� The major ports should have extremely high value for Japanese AIO, not to mention govern defensive/offensive strategy in a sea zone.

True, but the Minor Ports too. Menado / Makassar / Legaspi come to my mind as good Minor Ports for the US to have. Especially with this "super port" counters (Naval Supply Units) that the US have, which increase the capacity of a minor port from 4 to 14 or 19 ships.

Any port these NSU's are in should be considered a major port.

(in reply to Froonp)

Post #: 76

RE: AI for MWiF - China - 7/9/2007 12:32:28 AM

Frederyck

Posts: 427
Joined: 12/7/2005
From: Uppsala, Sweden
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99
Any port these NSU's are in should be considered a major port.

I am not too familiar with the workings of these NSUs during WWII, but since they're not considered Major Ports in WiFFE (the board game), they won't be in MWiF (the computer game) either.

(in reply to Zorachus99)

Post #: 77

RE: AI for MWiF - China - 7/9/2007 1:21:22 AM

Shannon V. OKeets

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Frederyck

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99
Any port these NSU's are in should be considered a major port.

I am not too familiar with the workings of these NSUs during WWII, but since they're not considered Major Ports in WiFFE (the board game), they won't be in MWiF (the computer game) either.

I think they represent the artificial harbor the Allies built at Normandy.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Frederyck)

Post #: 78

RE: AI for MWiF - China - 7/9/2007 1:33:48 AM

coregames

Posts: 470
Joined: 8/12/2004
Status: offline

I think we've gotten off topic in the AI for China thread.

_____________________________

"The creative combination lays bare the presumption of a lie." -- Lasker

Keith Henderson

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 79

RE: AI for MWiF - China - 7/9/2007 7:40:22 AM

Froonp

Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Frederyck

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99
Any port these NSU's are in should be considered a major port.

I am not too familiar with the workings of these NSUs during WWII, but since they're not considered Major Ports in WiFFE (the board game), they won't be in MWiF (the computer game) either.

I think that Zorachus was just saying that these should be taken care by the Japanese AIO just as if they were Major Ports, I don't think that Zorachus was asking for NSU to be Major Ports.

(in reply to Frederyck)

Post #: 80

RE: AI for MWiF - China - 7/9/2007 9:11:56 PM

trees

Posts: 175
Joined: 5/28/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

I think they represent the artificial harbor the Allies built at Normandy.

We have messed around with House Rules using them to beef up the logistics requirements of WiF by limiting a minor port to supplying only one HQ at a time unless you use a NSU in a way like the Mulberries (along with some port damage/repair rules). So there is some point to the 1944 campaign in France that historically needed Antwerp to continue across the Rhine, unlike WiF where even one HQ on one coastal hex can supply multiple Army Groups and railroads are always in perfect repair and full of rolling stock as soon as you need them. But when playing you can't remember how a few new supply rules work and it is more fun to just leave logistics invisible.

I think the NSU's represent the amazing Fleet Train (fast oilers, ammunition ships, hospital ships, the list goes on) the USN developed. When the Royal Navy wanted to deploy in the Pacific in 44-45 it was hard for them to work with the USN which had a far more advanced naval logistics system by that time.

On China, someone mentioned how to interface the ChiComms and the Nationalists. From what I remember of creating a paper map of the cWiF map, there was never a solid front line across China, but rather several mini-fronts that weren't connected, only one of which might have Nationalists & Communists in adjacent hexes, so I think that won't be as tricky of a waltz as it is now on the smaller scale maps.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 81

RE: AI for MWiF - China - 7/9/2007 9:44:59 PM

wosung

Posts: 692
Joined: 7/18/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: c92nichj

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

quote:

Playing in CWIF the Chineese theatre have been mostly about moving your units around the other guy trying to cut his supply or outflanking him, actual battles without overwhelming odds was few.

Very unhistorical all in all.

I'm no expert but the above is how I picture the war between Japan and China. In WIFFE a major battle in an impulse involves 6 corps against 2 which interprets as a two week battle between two armies "in the real world". Were there really as many major battles fought between China and Japan as we typically see in a game of WIFFE?

I'm no expert either but as I understood the war it was not much action going on.
Advance building HQ's by the japaneese to be able to keep more of his units in supply was seen in two of my three CWIF games, never in a WIFFE game.

Encircled armies(4-5 corps) permanently set of of supply was seen in my games both Chineese and Japaneese.

Flank and outrun your enemy was the major part of the game, unit density was to low for anything else.

To compare with WIFFE it plays quite like a campaign in the middle east, low unit density and often units outof supply both so is your enemy so not many fights, more moving into objectives unopposed.

Perhaps it helps the discussion of AI strategy in China to look what happend historically:

1. Even from 1939 to 1945 each year there used to be at least one regional (counter)offensive in China, either Jap or Chinese. Regional means North, Middle or South China.

2. The Chinese first line of defense usually was penetrated, because IJA was equipped with more artillery.

3. After breakthrough Japanese offensives mostly were not very successful simply because of lacking troops. Chinese used deep defenses or more often maneuvered against Japanese line of communication.

4. Huge areas behind the Japanese frontline were Chinese controlled, esp. in the countryside away from the rail lines.

5. Chinese Communist Yennan base area itself did not have a frontline towards the Japanese. It did not include Lanchow or Sian. It was surrounded and guarded by Nationalist Chinese elite units.

6. Logistically the big rivers were very important, at least in summer times. Perhaps in MWIF product2 they could count as railroads...

Sources (Esp. Points 2-3):
Wolf Schenke, Kampplatz Ostasien [Battlefield East Asia], Berlin 1941.
Wolf Schenke, Reise an die Gelbe Front [Journey to the Yellow Front], Berlin 1943
Wolf Schenke, China im Sturm [China in the Storm], Berlin 1949.

Schenke from 1937 to 1939 was the war correspondent of the "V�lkische Beobachter" (the daily newspaper of the Nazi party) in China. As such he could move freely on boh sides of the front, because Germany then had good relations with both sides.

Regards

(in reply to c92nichj)

Post #: 82

RE: AI for MWiF - China - 7/9/2007 10:23:20 PM

Shannon V. OKeets

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

Wosung,

Thanks.

If you are interested, Terje is starting on the writeups for the Chinese naval units. Perhaps you could give him some advice on sources?

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to wosung)

Post #: 83

RE: AI for MWiF - China - 7/10/2007 12:37:13 AM

wosung

Posts: 692
Joined: 7/18/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Wosung,

Thanks.

If you are interested, Terje is starting on the writeups for the Chinese naval units. Perhaps you could give him some advice on sources?

I'll need to check out a few things. But intel doesn't seem to bee very rosy, because, well, there wasn't much of a Chinese navy. It basically consisted of Ninghai and Pinghai (Japanese built coastal defense boats, labelled light cruisers). Additionally 2 German Uboats were vainly orderd. And that seems to be about all. WIF naval counters Chiang Kai-shek and Mme Chiang for sure are what ifs.

Good standard starting point is: Conway's all the worlds fighting ships, 1922-1946, p. 411-415.
PRC Military encyclopedia doesn't mention National Chinas' Navy, the same with Hsu Long-hsuen, History of the Sino-Japanese war.
Wikipedia gives few Infos.
If I should find more infos and sources I'll post then in this tread.

Regards

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 84

RE: AI for MWiF - China - 7/10/2007 12:55:41 AM

Shannon V. OKeets

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

Thanks.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to wosung)

Post #: 85

RE: AI for MWiF - China - 7/10/2007 2:12:12 PM

dale1066

Posts: 108
Joined: 6/23/2007
Status: offline

No Probs

I'm happy to play devils advocate and like to try out alternatives in the game, CWif is good for that and guess Mwif will be similar. Save it at a particular decision point and see how the game could have gone if you took up an alternative course of action. Though luck can have its part to play. In running through the start of a Cwif game running more or less the same strategy I've vichy'ed france in march/apr and from the same set up its taken till nov/dec. Just combinations of bad/good weather, initiative/ turn end rolls and bad/good combat die rolling seeming to make the difference.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 86

RE: AI for MWiF - China - 7/11/2007 9:52:41 PM

npilgaard

Posts: 175
Joined: 5/3/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: coregames
It's at these moments that the Russian AIO and the Chinese AIO need to be in agreement, to maximize the benefits of the transition and avoid mistakes.

Imho, Russian strategy needs to have first priority here. Of course, most of the time there will be no problems, as Russia will do land actions, and the CC can thus move as they want, but in case of conflicting interests regarding action choices for Chinese and Russian fronts, imho the Russian front is, in general, far more important than the Chinese one. (If Russia is brought down or fails to make enough damage to Germany the chance for victory for the Allies is looking very bad)

_____________________________

Regards
Nikolaj

(in reply to coregames)

Post #: 87

RE: AI for MWiF - China - 7/12/2007 12:27:23 AM

composer99

Posts: 2923
Joined: 6/6/2005
From: Ottawa, Canada
Status: offline

Seems to me that the Chinese AIO basically has to ask the Soviet AIO for the number of land moves it wants, and the Soviet AIO comes back and tells the Chinese AIO how many it can get. It's usually only a problem when the USSR does combined impulses (especially before it is at war) and has a limited number of land moves to make. If it does a land or super-combined, then the Commies can move as much as they want. If the USSR does a naval or air, they can't move at all. But the Soviets shouldn't really let the demands of the Communist Chinese influence their decisions.

_____________________________

~ Composer99

(in reply to npilgaard)

Post #: 88

RE: AI for MWiF - China - 7/12/2007 12:56:09 AM

Shannon V. OKeets

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

To Nikolaj & Christopher.

Yes, I agree.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to composer99)

Post #: 89

RE: AI for MWiF - China - 7/13/2007 8:52:57 PM

brian brian

Posts: 3191
Joined: 11/16/2005
Status: offline

but the Soviets should run the ChiComms towards acquring their own nice Red victory cities at the end, not towards running feints designed to help the Nationalists get them. In other words, the Soviet AIO should move the ChiComms more like an aligned minor.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 90