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 - USSR

 
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 - USSR Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: AI for MWiF - USSR - 3/18/2008 10:37:37 AM   
IKerensky

 

Posts: 374
Joined: 6/7/2001
Status: offline 		My USSR Strategy:

Hoard all the oil on the map.
Stack STR and a CP in the Caspian to DOW persia, STR the MIL and walk a CAV to Teheran ( harder in CWiF but possible ). Could need a HQ.

Have the STR stack back to europe and while Germany and France fight off ask for Bessarabia, pray the German say no. STR Bomb Ploesti out of existence. Axis are game over.
Keep the STR stack until barbarossa and STR bomb ploesti ( at night if necessary ) until it is rumbled.

 By STR I mean every russian bombers with 3-6 STR bombing and 10+ range. Even if you dont use your FTR at set up for that anyway you are going to build them better planes.

Depending on the Oil rule version played Germany and especially Italy are entirely dependant on Ploesti to work. You can even start thinking about going to Irak from Russia with a paradrop then a destruction of the Oil field.

 If you play with factory destruction then a good strike on Ploesti ( not too hard to achieve with the amount of STR the russian can muster : easily several attacks with HQ reorg at top column ) can just win the war, and Berlin and a lot of other area could be reached by the russians bombers. If the CW do the same on the other side the Germans will soon be in deep poopoo.

Also sail your subs out of Vladivostok and declare on Japan at a big chance of turn ending impulse, try to split them at theirs CP lines with USA and cut it. If you succeed you seriously upped the ante for your side to win the war with early US intervention. Also you can bet that next time Japan will burn a decent amount of Oil each turn just to keep his CP lines safe, wich is even better.

(in reply to hakon)
Post #: 151
RE: AI for MWiF - USSR - 3/18/2008 12:27:28 PM   
wosung

 

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

ORIGINAL: hakon


- Russia should always stuff (reason: little to loose, very much to gain)
- If Russia stuffs, Germany should not try a 41 barb. (Reason: little to gain, more to loose)

Which means that all games will be close the med games.


That's true from what I read in the wifdiscussion forum http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/wifdiscussion/

Close the Med seems to be the dream scenario, conceptualized by an Australian game company for an essential anglo-american group of customers: To play/or beat Rommel.
BTW: Nothing against ADG, nothing against anglo-american customers. Without them both: no MWIF.
But a more variable setting would be nice.

And for the Russo-German stuffing: What exactly is this game mechanism aiming at?


quote:

ORIGINAL: hakon
What I am hoping for, eventually, are rules changes, that:
- Allows Germany to go through with the historical actions, regardless what the USSR does, that is that they get to attack Russia in 1941 even if they finish Tirpitz, wage a battle of the atlantic, even takes some losses in France or in a Battle of Britain, and even allows them to have some forces in Africa while doing this.
- Prevents a knock out of Russia if Germany goes for the Super Balbo strategy (as it's been called, one of my posts on this strategy has been copied into the German strategy thread), ie the strategy of building a large air force of more than 10 (maybe even 20) aircraft prior to Barbarossa..

Secondary concerns, include:
- Reduce the effectiveness of the Super Balbo and Super Alex strategies in general.
- Create more friction beteen nations allied to each other, for instance by altering the victory point system into a system with separate victory conditions for each country. (The Britannia board game has a good system for this, for instance.)


So do you think the balance issue is a problem of action limits and of balancing the role playing element (naval oriented CW vs. land oriented Germany)?

I like the "more friction" part for MWIF Product 2. It would be nice to have a interface for inter allied bargain: lend lease of a/c for raw materiel. Oil for invading France in 43 instead of a med strat. Esp. for playing against the AIO this would be fine.


Regards


(in reply to hakon)
Post #: 152
RE: AI for MWiF - USSR - 3/18/2008 1:03:12 PM   
Froonp


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

ORIGINAL: wosung
quote:

ORIGINAL: hakon
- Russia should always stuff (reason: little to loose, very much to gain)
- If Russia stuffs, Germany should not try a 41 barb. (Reason: little to gain, more to loose)

Which means that all games will be close the med games.


That's true from what I read in the wifdiscussion forum http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/wifdiscussion/

Close the Med seems to be the dream scenario, conceptualized by an Australian game company for an essential anglo-american group of customers: To play/or beat Rommel.
BTW: Nothing against ADG, nothing against anglo-american customers. Without them both: no MWIF.
But a more variable setting would be nice.

This is a huge major concern for me too.
"Close the Med" looks too much like the ideal scenario, which is wrong IMO for a WWII based wargame.

(in reply to wosung)
Post #: 153
RE: AI for MWiF - USSR - 3/18/2008 9:48:09 PM   
hakon

 

Posts: 298
Joined: 4/15/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: wosung

So do you think the balance issue is a problem of action limits and of balancing the role playing element (naval oriented CW vs. land oriented Germany)?



Balancing can be done in a number of ways. Simply making Russia stronger would balance the super Balbo, but could cause the Axis to avoid battle as long as possible. Making russia stronger AND making the surprise turn more effective (for instance by requireing some russians to be at the border at the time of the dow), could have the opposite effect, that is to make a Barbarossa the only way for Germany to survive, since those extra forces could make Russia too strong if not hurt sufficiently during the surprise turn.

But doing something about the logistics system or the action limit system could work too.

In raw, the only factor that limits Germany's speed of advance in 1939 is the need to rebase aircraft to the front. Of course, with unlimited italian air forces, that problem disappears, and a Russian strategy of gradually pulling back become far less effective. In real life, of course, the German land forces was just as limited by overextended supply trains as the air force was, but for game purposes, limiting the air force is enough.

To keep WIF's simplicity, removing the ability for Italy to take air while Germany takes land, would solve the problem. For instance, impulse type could be per side per map (letting Russia be counted as a speparate side for this purpose), so that if Germany took land in eastern Europe, Italy had to take land there too. This would have the added benefits of also fixing super Alex, and also giving Germany a chance to sail her subs while performing Barbarossa.

Another solution, that lends itself better to a computer game than to a board game, would be to create a more realistic logistics system. First of all, it coudl be made necessary to repair rail lines in the Soviet union. This coudl be made by placing an HQ or ENG on a hex, which would repair the rail in the hex at the end of the impulse, and only if the hex already were next to a hex that had already been repaired. This would limit the long term advance of the German army in Russia to one hex per impulse.

Even more detailed supply systems could be imagined, such as he one used by the otherwise relatively simple Matrix game, World at War, where supply is produced, and has to be moved to the front using, and limited by, existing infrastructure.

(in reply to wosung)
Post #: 154
RE: AI for MWiF - USSR - 3/19/2008 3:35:30 AM   
brian brian

 

Posts: 3191
Joined: 11/16/2005
Status: offline 		I like the impulse-per-side-per-map idea a lot. Let oil limit unit activities, not the current system that encourages playing to the rules system too much.

RaW does have individual country victory conditions though. It's just that WiF takes so long to play, there is a lot of social pressure not to play the game to win as an individual (and thus not to stuff...c'mon man, don't be so boring, or let's just get rid of that rule for this one game....) For a lot of people a game of WiF is as much an experience as a contest. I think the computer game, with less invested in all those pieces and trips to the game room and everything, will help bring out the competition within each side a little bit more. But it might show more of the doubters just how powerful (errr, maybe 'rigid' is a better term) the stuff strategy is.

And the WiF logistics rules are quite a giveaway to the players, to keep playability high. If Russian rail would need to be converted, the true amount of shipping required to support D-Day should be modeled as well, in addition to how many tankers the Axis can get a hold of in the Med and several other large logistics questions that are swept under the playability rug.


For close-the-Med games, I've always thought Spain is a little weak. On September 1st, 1939, they had the most combat-experienced army in Europe. Germany would overwhelm their front line eventually, but the partisan warfare behind them would be vicious and effective. I also think Stukas are far too effective in mountain hexes. With DoD1 and WiF5, if anyone was dumb enough to DoW Spain during the Civil War, they would fight against both the Nationalist and Republican units simultaneously. This seems to be a more plausible simulation of what a 1940 Spanish campaign would be like....hordes of experienced infantry ready to take on the invader.

(in reply to hakon)
Post #: 155
RE: AI for MWiF - USSR - 3/19/2008 11:58:51 AM   
npilgaard

 

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

ORIGINAL: hakon
Balancing can be done in a number of ways.


One option would be to play without WiF Edit: not without WiF but without PiF - that would drastically reduce Italy's ability to build a to-large air force.
In our group we have played without PiF the previous game and it worked out very well (everyone was very pleased with the result). We are about to start a new game, and we will play without PiF again.

But iirc it is not possible to disable the PiF-option in MWiF (?).
I don't know the data/code structure, but (without the proper knowledge) it don't seem to difficult to just remove a number of units from the available aircraft units, and thus allowing the PiF-option to be turned off. It will have a major impact on AI, though - maybe that is the reason not to do it

< Message edited by npilgaard -- 3/19/2008 12:07:19 PM >

_____________________________

Regards
Nikolaj

(in reply to hakon)
Post #: 156
RE: AI for MWiF - USSR - 3/19/2008 12:04:58 PM   
npilgaard

 

Posts: 175
Joined: 5/3/2006
Status: offline 		To elaborate a bit (from a post in wifdiscussion-forum):

At first glance it may sound unsatisfying to leave out so many units - after all, most experienced WiF-players like the added complexity and flexibility that extra units provide. Also, they allow to focus more
on specific types of units; and one could argue that it leads to imbalance to play with e.g. SiF but not PiF.

Nevertheless, it turned out very well - one of the best changes we have made to our games for a long time.
A number of advantages:
- limits the Italian/CW all-air strategies
- avoids the great FTR-race - without PiF there are only so many FTRs, and most major powers build them out reasonably quickly
- less aircraft available to be built means more BP for other things - we now see many units being built that we otherwise rarely see in our games - also, the poorer aircraft are now fielded (and often not scrapped) since even a poor aircraft means one more aircraft on table; when having played many games, (almost) any kind of change is
refreshing :-)
- with less aircraft available it is a much harder choice where to deploy and use them - and more player choices makes the game more interesting and fun, imho
- air combat becomes more exciting - it now means much more to lose one or two good aircrafts
- the 'pool all axis ac in the 1 or 2 box in the Med and hope for a successful search roll'-tactic is less of a problem. Italy can still cause trouble with NAV/FTR in the Med, though, so not unbalancing imho
- and similar: avoid the huge bunch of japanese lba guarding 2-3 sea areas in the late war
- thus CVs become more important - even an occasional Italian CV or two :-)
- air-to-air combats tend to be fought between smaller forces, which imho is a good thing, since the air-to-air combat system handles battles between large amounts of of fighters poorly - unlike the land combat system, which is based on relative strength (i.e. ratio), the air-to-air combat system is based on absolute strength (i.e.
difference), meaning that with lots of fighters, but same number on each side and roughly even strength, a single loss or two can mean that the odds become so bad, that the combat is pretty much lost (e.g. huge naval air battles near Japan in the end-game, where 10+ fighters (or much more if playing with multiple CVPs on each CV) participate on each side just a couple of losses can lead to a +4/-4 situation or worse, meaning that chances of success have decreased dramatically - with fewer CVPs the usual 'build lots and lots of cheap CVPs and
take losses somewhat lightly since there are plenty to replace with' is not seen in the same magnitude - it now takes 4 turns before a good CVP returns
- usually, in '44 and '45 the allied impulses can take a very long time to complete due to super-combined and lots of aircraft - to some extend this is avoided, meaning a better pace of the late game

All in all, this is of course a matter of taste, but we are very happy with playing without PiF (and pilots and CVP - using only the CVP from SiF) for a change (and as mentioned, we continue doing so, at least atm), and regarding play balance it seems to me to work out well. Of course it requires rethinking some of the usual strategies, but that is very refreshing when the games otherwise can be somewhat repetitive.

Just a few thoughts about whether to PiF or not to PiF :-)


_____________________________

Regards
Nikolaj

(in reply to npilgaard)
Post #: 157
RE: AI for MWiF - USSR - 3/19/2008 4:03:16 PM   
IKerensky

 

Posts: 374
Joined: 6/7/2001
Status: offline 		Use oil rules...

(in reply to npilgaard)
Post #: 158
RE: AI for MWiF - USSR - 3/19/2008 4:12:55 PM   
hakon

 

Posts: 298
Joined: 4/15/2005
Status: offline 		Although it may help balance out things a bit, I see two problems with playing without PiF:

1) It is one step towards playing with a fixed OOB. I really like the ability that a full WiF gives in terms of letting the player play with various "what if" scenarios. Historically, Hitler WAS criticised for building too few fighters (and too many bombers).

2) Without PiF, advance building of aircraft (unless also banned) becomes too much of a dominating feature. Paying 2 extra build points for an aircraft with 1-2 extra air-to-air factors is easily worth it.

In general, I prefer to fix the errors in the actual simulation over introducing arbitrary constraints like this. And in my opinion, the real problem is that having 2 countries, 1 that does a land and one that does an air, is too strong compared to just having one country.

(in reply to npilgaard)
Post #: 159
RE: AI for MWiF - USSR - 3/19/2008 4:45:08 PM   
Sewerlobster


Posts: 330
Joined: 5/7/2007
From: Reading, Pa. USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: hakon

Although it may help balance out things a bit, I see two problems with playing without PiF:

1) It is one step towards playing with a fixed OOB. I really like the ability that a full WiF gives in terms of letting the player play with various "what if" scenarios. Historically, Hitler WAS criticised for building too few fighters (and too many bombers).

2) Without PiF, advance building of aircraft (unless also banned) becomes too much of a dominating feature. Paying 2 extra build points for an aircraft with 1-2 extra air-to-air factors is easily worth it.

In general, I prefer to fix the errors in the actual simulation over introducing arbitrary constraints like this. And in my opinion, the real problem is that having 2 countries, 1 that does a land and one that does an air, is too strong compared to just having one country.


I'd have to say that I am leaning the other way on this. PiF has always been, for me at least, an unneccesary complication to the game. By abstracting the pilot training,i.e. eliminating the pilot bookkeeping, WiF returns to being a wargame. Don't get me wrong there are times I'll play w/pilots but it always feels incongruous with the scale of the game.

This is one facet I'd just as soon see eliminated if it gets the game out sooner.

(in reply to hakon)
Post #: 160
RE: AI for MWiF - USSR - 3/19/2008 5:59:19 PM   
hakon

 

Posts: 298
Joined: 4/15/2005
Status: offline 		The main feature that I like about pilots, is that it gives the defender somve of the advantage he should have. This is perhaps the main reason why the English won the Battle of Britain, and is also a key reason why Germany got so many more aces than the allies (while defending their own airspace). An english pilot shot down over Germany would be out of the war, while a German pilot would just borrow a car, and could be back in the air only hours after being shot down. (Rudel, for instance, was shot down or forced to land 32 times.....)

I would rather do away with some of the divisional scale units, than the pilots.

(in reply to Sewerlobster)
Post #: 161
RE: AI for MWiF - USSR - 3/19/2008 7:36:38 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

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

ORIGINAL: SewerStarFish


quote:

ORIGINAL: hakon

Although it may help balance out things a bit, I see two problems with playing without PiF:

1) It is one step towards playing with a fixed OOB. I really like the ability that a full WiF gives in terms of letting the player play with various "what if" scenarios. Historically, Hitler WAS criticised for building too few fighters (and too many bombers).

2) Without PiF, advance building of aircraft (unless also banned) becomes too much of a dominating feature. Paying 2 extra build points for an aircraft with 1-2 extra air-to-air factors is easily worth it.

In general, I prefer to fix the errors in the actual simulation over introducing arbitrary constraints like this. And in my opinion, the real problem is that having 2 countries, 1 that does a land and one that does an air, is too strong compared to just having one country.


I'd have to say that I am leaning the other way on this. PiF has always been, for me at least, an unneccesary complication to the game. By abstracting the pilot training,i.e. eliminating the pilot bookkeeping, WiF returns to being a wargame. Don't get me wrong there are times I'll play w/pilots but it always feels incongruous with the scale of the game.

This is one facet I'd just as soon see eliminated if it gets the game out sooner.


All the code for pilots is done (from CWIF).

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Sewerlobster)
Post #: 162
RE: AI for MWiF - USSR - 3/19/2008 9:21:53 PM   
Froonp


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

ORIGINAL: hakon
This is perhaps the main reason why the English won the Battle of Britain

I though that the main reason was ULTRA.
Which in turn is the main reason why I would never play a game without the Intelligence Optional rule.

(in reply to hakon)
Post #: 163
RE: AI for MWiF - USSR - 3/19/2008 9:43:21 PM   
npilgaard

 

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

ORIGINAL: hakon

Although it may help balance out things a bit, I see two problems with playing without PiF:

1) It is one step towards playing with a fixed OOB. I really like the ability that a full WiF gives in terms of letting the player play with various "what if" scenarios. Historically, Hitler WAS criticized for building too few fighters (and too many bombers).

I agree - I like that as well, and playing without PiF does limit the options.
quote:


2) Without PiF, advance building of aircraft (unless also banned) becomes too much of a dominating feature. Paying 2 extra build points for an aircraft with 1-2 extra air-to-air factors is easily worth it.

Agree - building ahead has to be banned as well.
quote:


In general, I prefer to fix the errors in the actual simulation over introducing arbitrary constraints like this. And in my opinion, the real problem is that having 2 countries, 1 that does a land and one that does an air, is too strong compared to just having one country.

And I agree again
However, this will require a rules change in RaW itself, and therefore is not an option for MWiF (at least not unless RaW is changed)

_____________________________

Regards
Nikolaj

(in reply to hakon)
Post #: 164
RE: AI for MWiF - USSR - 3/20/2008 12:20:30 AM   
hakon

 

Posts: 298
Joined: 4/15/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

I though that the main reason was ULTRA.
Which in turn is the main reason why I would never play a game without the Intelligence Optional rule.


Maybe that was the main reason, and maybe the main reason was the short range of the 109's. It clearly was a combination of all of the above. And even if I am sure you are being a bit ironic, I do miss having more control over the research system, myself.

Hakon

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 165
RE: AI for MWiF - USSR - 3/20/2008 1:47:10 AM   
brian brian

 

Posts: 3191
Joined: 11/16/2005
Status: offline 		Patrice, I think you mean the British development of radar?

I don't think they broke the Enigma codes until after the Battle of Britain.

The British won the Battle due to the pilot advantage Hakon mentioned, and several poor German decisions to change their plan, such as quitting attacking airfields, radar stations, and fighter production plants. And also not really having enough resources ready for the campaign. And Hitler losing interest in that strategic direction, and probably some more reasons too.

The current Intelligence rule is huge give-away to the Allies...I really look forward to seeing it changed some day.

(in reply to hakon)
Post #: 166
RE: AI for MWiF - USSR - 3/20/2008 2:16:48 AM   
Froonp


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

ORIGINAL: brian brian

Patrice, I think you mean the British development of radar?

I don't think they broke the Enigma codes until after the Battle of Britain.

The British won the Battle due to the pilot advantage Hakon mentioned, and several poor German decisions to change their plan, such as quitting attacking airfields, radar stations, and fighter production plants. And also not really having enough resources ready for the campaign. And Hitler losing interest in that strategic direction, and probably some more reasons too.

The current Intelligence rule is huge give-away to the Allies...I really look forward to seeing it changed some day.

Radar is a factor, the short range of the 109's is another, the survivability of British pilots, but I read that ULTRA is the main reason. I read that Dowding and his HQ was aware of the big German raids before they took-off, and could place his squadrons accordingly. In comparison, he was lost in front of Free Fighter Sweeps that were not forecast in advance.

We are all victims of the Battle of Britain Myth, but it seems that ULTRA played a more important role that what is commonly known.

By the way, I believe that the Intell Rule in WiF FE is not powerfull enough compared to what it achieved during the war. I think that this huge give-away as you say, is the historical give-away, and should be as normal in WiF FE as Blitz attacks are.

(in reply to brian brian)
Post #: 167
RE: AI for MWiF - USSR - 3/20/2008 4:09:44 AM   
brian brian

 

Posts: 3191
Joined: 11/16/2005
Status: offline 		Given equal players I think the Allies can win most every game of WiF without the Intell rule. The Con results have been pointing that way for awhile now. Maybe Hakon has found a way to reverse that, I haven't tried the super-all-out Italian Barb. But it's Russia's choice whether to even allow that strategy, and perhaps it could beat me as I have and would again voluntarily pick 1941 Barb as the Russian player for a fluid, more fun game.

Intell things could have gone differently, and that is the whole point of playing a wargame to my mind. Avalon Hill's "Victory in the Pacific" simulated the US Intell advantage quite simply and succinctly by making the Japanese always move first. Should every wargame pre-suppose that the USA knows the Japanese plans? The USA always gets to know that "AF" means Midway? I agree that an Intell system can be a great part of the game...but should it simply be a system to make the game fun for the big Green machine? After December, 1941, (Pearl Harbor and failure of Operation Typhoon) there was very little chance the Allies could have lost WWII. I'd hate to see the game World in Flames be the same every time.

It's been a long time since I read "The ULTRA secret", but I think they broke different parts of the Enigma system at different times, with the Kriegsmarine being last and the other German services coming before that. The Poles captured a machine and got the process started I think?

My brother-in-law was telling me at Christmas about some new Battle of Britain volume that argues the Germany could never have won it, based on raw production statistics alone...just not enough airframes, crews, and bombs. I'll have to visit my sister and peek at his new book to figure that out.

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 168
RE: AI for MWiF - USSR - 3/20/2008 11:14:26 AM   
IKerensky

 

Posts: 374
Joined: 6/7/2001
Status: offline 		England won Battle of Britain because the :
1- The Germans were unable to keep to a coordinated strategy and adjust to terror bombing in the middle of the campaign.
2- The Germans weren't really able to mount a sea invasion.
3- The 109 short range is a point as the RAF could jsut have withdrawn all his asset N of london and kept the Axis bobm at will uninteresting part of the southern landscape.
4- The LW wasn't suited for strategical warfare.
5- The radar and all the coordinated defense net ( even Mk I  Eyeball observer did their part ).

The Germans could have won a tactical victory and force the RAF to abandon Southern England if they have keep their Airfield Suppression strategy. This would have accounted for nothing as the RAF and RN could still have sunk any attemps for the german to cross the channel on their 3 mph, 2 feet above water high, towed barges... and dont laugh that was what they planned to use. Their training landing drown 30 men and took 8 hours just to land a batallion sized unit... And dont forget that the first supply run would have occured 3 weeks after the initial landings, that there will be nothing heavier than ATR and no artilery on the initial landing, and that the guys were supposed to land take off their life jacket, stack them on the beach and have them returned by boat for the next wave...

(in reply to brian brian)
Post #: 169
RE: AI for MWiF - USSR - 5/11/2008 4:14:36 PM   
Orm


Posts: 22154
Joined: 5/3/2008
From: Sweden
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: c92nichj

quote:

Russia can easily take advantage of Persia (especially in CWiF where Teheran is in a Clear hex -- I would advise to put it back in a Mountain hex), and grab the 3 Oil resources it has.

This is risky business. An agressive Japaneese player will ship a couple of white print units into the oil hexes, those will be very difficult to get rid of and essentially gives the japanese three extra oil.
The winner at WIFCon this year used this strategy with japan this year I believe.
If you are to kill Persia do it quickly.


It is my understanding that the Japanese units would be removed from Persia during the conquest step.

I cut the following from Official RAW-7a 13.7.1 Conquest

-Incomplete conquest
"All units from the conquered side in that country are now moved to the nearest friendly hex outside the country that they may stack in, unless they are at war with the conquerer."

-Complete conquest
"Change the control of the last home country conquered as under the incomplete conquest rules (exception, Poland ~ see 19.5.1)."

(in reply to c92nichj)
Post #: 170
RE: AI for MWiF - USSR - 5/11/2008 5:27:40 PM   
Taxman66


Posts: 1665
Joined: 3/19/2008
From: Columbia, MD. USA
Status: offline 		It would allow the JA player a chance to torch the oil, if it took long enough.

(in reply to Orm)
Post #: 171
RE: AI for MWiF - USSR - 5/11/2008 5:30:26 PM   
Orm


Posts: 22154
Joined: 5/3/2008
From: Sweden
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Taxman66

It would allow the JA player a chance to torch the oil, if it took long enough.


If you conquer Persia in one turn the Japanese can't even destroy the oil since the conquest step is before the victory check where you destroy oil.

(in reply to Taxman66)
Post #: 172
RE: AI for MWiF - USSR - 5/11/2008 9:13:27 PM   
Taxman66


Posts: 1665
Joined: 3/19/2008
From: Columbia, MD. USA
Status: offline 		Yes, of course hence the "if it took long enough" disclaimer.

(in reply to Orm)
Post #: 173
RE: AI for MWiF - USSR - 5/15/2008 8:50:19 PM   
npilgaard

 

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

ORIGINAL: Orm
-Incomplete conquest
(...) unless they are at war with the conquerer."


So if Japan looks like she is planning an attack on USSR instead of focusing on the Chinese, then an USSR-attack on Persia would be quite risky (and probably not recommendable - especially if playing with the oil rule)

_____________________________

Regards
Nikolaj

(in reply to Orm)
Post #: 174
RE: AI for MWiF - USSR - 5/16/2008 5:49:48 AM   
Zorachus99


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

ORIGINAL: npilgaard


quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm
-Incomplete conquest
(...) unless they are at war with the conquerer."


So if Japan looks like she is planning an attack on USSR instead of focusing on the Chinese, then an USSR-attack on Persia would be quite risky (and probably not recommendable - especially if playing with the oil rule)


I play with Persia as an 'untouchable' particularly with the oil rule because the japanese benefits greatly being able to rebase fast trs's into the persian ports. Oil is more important to Japan than Germany IMO. A well fueled Japanese Navy burns great amounts of oil while being agressive. Too little oil for Japan, and you end up being much more judicious in fear of becoming disorganized and unable to reorganize every single ship (which I consider very important).

If you see the Japanese player leaving units disorganized, he's already become concious of a losing oil position. I often save nearly ALL of my oil in the early game; production is only mildy affected and it leaves you with plenty for reorganization in the future.

Building the Oil Counter is critical, but so expensive; it disrupts your production considerably in your planning for the very early war ('39-'40).


_____________________________

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

(in reply to npilgaard)
Post #: 175
RE: AI for MWiF - USSR - 5/20/2008 4:29:46 PM   
composer99


Posts: 2923
Joined: 6/6/2005
From: Ottawa, Canada
Status: offline 		Paratroopers are the USSR's friend when invading Middle Eastern minors.

_____________________________

~ Composer99

(in reply to Zorachus99)
Post #: 176
RE: AI for MWiF - USSR - 5/21/2008 12:23:46 PM   
hakon

 

Posts: 298
Joined: 4/15/2005
Status: offline 		I find that there is slightly better economy for Japan in building both synth plants asap than saving oil. The second synth plant can even be advance built in JF 1940 and still pay for itself compared to saving oil. (Having the synth plant available for 5 more turns lets you use 5 oil for production in 1940 + 41 which will give you 5 extra bp, or a +2 bp return on the investment of 3bp for advance building).

Japan still needs to save 5-10 oil, so that she can reorg her units a couple of turns, even if access to NEI is broken, but having both synth plans available from 1941, means that saving 15-25 oil is not neccesary.

Cheers
Hakon

(in reply to composer99)
Post #: 177
RE: AI for MWiF - USSR - 5/21/2008 2:34:36 PM   
hakon

 

Posts: 298
Joined: 4/15/2005
Status: offline 		Japan can counter paras stationed in range of the persian oil by setting up the iraqi cav on the oil instead of in the capital. Of course, this means that you don't have to fight for the capital, but Japan will still get the 2-point oil (Russia can still para-drop on the 1-point oil). Japan can then try to attack the russian para on the 1 point oil using the cav + any japanese that get there in the first impulse, having the cav as a free casualty, since it will die at the end of the turn, anyway.

While using a para certainly helps, dow'ing persia is still an open invitation for Japan to DOW, and should usually only be done in game situations where Japan is more afraid of a war with the USSR than the USSR is of a was with Japan. (For instance in cases where Germany is clearly going for a med-41), or in cases where Japan is in no position to reinforce Persia. (It may also be attempted if there is more than a 50% chance of end of turn after Russia attacks Persia, provided that the attack on Teheran is guaranteed to succeed).

Cheers
Hakon


quote:

ORIGINAL: composer99

Paratroopers are the USSR's friend when invading Middle Eastern minors.


(in reply to composer99)
Post #: 178
RE: AI for MWiF - USSR - 5/22/2008 4:55:08 PM   
cockney

 

Posts: 83
Joined: 11/15/2006
From: London
Status: offline 		having a think about what the USSR ai should do.

1 historical attack eastern Poland and the balticks.

2 demand Finnish territories, if denied attack Finnland (winter war)

3 demand Moldova

4 attack Bulgaria

5 defend the Motherland with fighting withdrawals untill stong enough to counter attack.

ai should be able to determine at what stages to do each of these depending on the run of play.

_____________________________

never piss off a sgt major

(in reply to hakon)
Post #: 179
RE: AI for MWiF - USSR - 5/25/2008 6:39:52 PM   
peskpesk


Posts: 2347
Joined: 7/17/2003
From: Stockholm, Sweden
Status: offline 		Denmark gambit, is it worth it?

The plan was for the USSR to gets into the war with an invasion of Denmark to create a Pact Border Area with the Germany/Danish Border and the CW takes the small ports in the north to be able to harass the German convoys in the Baltic sea. But since the latest adjustment of the rules one got to ask, is it worth it?

5.1 Trade agreements
…

Germany-USSR
…
For each of Denmark, Greece, Hungary, Norway, Sweden or Yugoslavia that the Soviet Union declares war, or a Soviet controlled unit enters, Germany may choose to either keep one of the build points it would normally send to the Soviet Union, or receive an extra oil from the Soviet Union, each turn. This choice can not be changed later.

Extra BP or oil to Germany for Denmark

9.5.3 Breaking the Nazi-Soviet pact
…
If a Soviet controlled unit enters any hex in Denmark, Greece, Hungary, Norway, Sweden or Yugoslavia, then the German player can break the Nazi-Soviet pact during…

Once broken, there is no longer a neutrality pact (see 9.5), nor a trade agreement (see 5.1), between
Germany and the USSR.

Germany can break the pact at his choice

19.3 Who can enter the minor
Your units can enter hexes controlled by a minor country if:
• you are at war with it or with the major power that controls it; or
• it is conquered by you or another active major power on your side; or
• it is aligned with any active major power on your side and the unit entering is controlled by an active
major power (subject to the foreign troop commitment rules ~ see 18.2); or
• it is aligned with a neutral major power on your side and the unit entering is one of that major power’s unit.

While the USSR is a neutral major power the rest of Denmark is a no access to CW

What do you think?

(in reply to cockney)
Post #: 180
Page:   <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> AI Opponent Discussion >> RE: AI for MWiF - USSR Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.234