AI for MWiF-Italy

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: ptey

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
As for the strategic choices of players at WIF tournaments, I believe the analogy to chess openings is appropriate. Over the years different chess openings have been popular. At different times one will be considered to provide the best opportunity to win. Eventually, someone comes up with counter moves that reduce the opening to a more equitable outcome, and the opening's popularity wans.

Clearly, chess, with its rigid rules set for the past 150 - 200 years, is not 'forcing' the players to play a certain opening. Rather the players are the variable and they are choosing an opening that they think gives them the best chance of winning. Over time, I suspect that WIF will evolve different responses to German/Axis strategic plans that will cause the choice of which strategic plan to employ to mutate too.

This is probably true. However this doesnt change the fact that some strategies are 'gamey'(that is, very strong strategies in specific situations, which are possible by the rules, but highly ahistorical and (i think) not intended by the designers) and most likely will be considered so by most players. There will ofcourse be degrees of 'gameyness'.

I will personally prefer to play against an ai that doesnt employ gamey tactics/strategies in every situation possible. Some people will ofcourse have different preferences, however i dont think that im alone with this opinion. Thus providing an option to have the ai not use any strategies or tactics flagged as gamey, should be acceptable for all. This will ofcourse require more work, but i dont think it will be that much.

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Getting back to a Baltic state as a new home country for the Italians, ...

Yes, it seems strange. But in 1939, wouldn't having the Free French government set up in Gabon have seemed strange too? And all those other countries who had elements of their fighting forces operate out of England (e.g., Norway, Belgium, Netherlands, Poland)? The capacity of armed forces to continue fighting for their country after the war is clearly lost is really quite astonishing. So, if the Italians had been given the opportunity by Hitler to occupy Estonia and later set up a home-away-from-home there, the likelihood of remaining Italian units being willing to continue fighting doesn't strike me as completely far-fetched.

Perhaps not completely far-fetched, but imo (based on my knowledge of history) extremely unlikely. I have never seen italy liberate the baltic states, but if someone did it in a game i participated in, with the intend of using them as back-up home countrys, i would consider it gamey. But i do ofcourse realize it is a legat move, and a house rule would be needed to prevent people from doing it.

This is in no way meant as a threat, but if you intend to teach the ai every gamey trick there is (and you can find quite a few by looking through the wiflist and from speaking with very experienced players i would think), i probably wouldnt have much fun playing against the ai and would buy the game only for pbem and netplay games.

Personally, I am very adverse to "tricky little bits", especially if they look like something a rules lawyer figured out. I believe strongly in a direct approach and consider it essential for the AIO. The trouble with using something weird is that it can often have unexpected repercussions. Simple, straightforward, solid play is best. Remain focused on the main objective and don't be sidetracked by odd opportunities might result in a confusing position to analyze. This is the logic of KISS (keep it simple, stupid) for AIO design.

Nevertheless, I want to know about the tricky bits, if for no other reason than for the AIO to be able to defend against/react to them. And I expect to give most of them a low probability of being chosen by the AIO if the requisite conditions arise.

As for using restrictions on strategic plans as a way of reducing the AIO's ability to play a strong game - I can only hope to have such a problem as the AIO playing too well that it needs to be 'fixed'.

[ptey]

Thank you for the clarification, this sounds much like the kinda ai i would have fun playing against.

To go back on topic, I saw this http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/wif ... sage/87958 post recently on the wiflist. I dont know if its alittle to vague for what you are looking for, but i think it has some nice points.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: ptey

Thank you for the clarification, this sounds much like the kinda ai i would have fun playing against.

To go back on topic, I saw this http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/wif ... sage/87958 post recently on the wiflist. I dont know if its alittle to vague for what you are looking for, but i think it has some nice points.

Thanks for the Italian strategy reference. I use all the sources I can get my grubby paws on for things related to WIF planning.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: ptey

Thank you for the clarification, this sounds much like the kinda ai i would have fun playing against.

To go back on topic, I saw this http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/wif ... sage/87958 post recently on the wiflist. I dont know if its alittle to vague for what you are looking for, but i think it has some nice points.

I must say that this production schedule looks like it is used in a "Barbarossa with the kitchen sink" Axis strategy.

kaikunze says that :

Italy is an integral part of the European Axis. It must not be played independently from Germany,
there should be but one strategy and one operational command. In practice, that means that the German player, with advice from the Italian player, should make strategic decisions, decide what and how much Italy builds, decide where Italian units are deployed and decide what action type Italy takes each impulse.

While I agree in parts, I strongly refuse that Italy is played this way by Germany.

Italy also has his goals, and can accomplish them if Germany let it do it. Italy must not be Germany's puppet and must think 1) to its defense and 2) to achieve its goals and 3) to help Germany. While it's true that the Euroaxis must be a team that work in close cooperation (as the Wallies must too), it is also true that Italy must think for itself. Italy can win the game if played with its own pride and leadership.

I've often played against players that made Italy a puppet (they are the Con players that are ready to anything within the rules to win), and who ranked things differently : 1) to help Germany 2) to its defense and 3) to achieve its goals. These players often used Italian units to do the dirty job, and a couple a German units to captures the juicy objectives cities, this is all wrong for me. Italy must be given his own pride and leadership.

[CBoehm]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

I've often played against players that made Italy a puppet (they are the Con players that are ready to anything within the rules to win), and who ranked things differently : 1) to help Germany 2) to its defense and 3) to achieve its goals. These players often used Italian units to do the dirty job, and a couple a German units to captures the juicy objectives cities, this is all wrong for me. Italy must be given his own pride and leadership.

Well since I never played with individual victory conditions .... [8|]

I ALWAYS play Italy - Ge as ONE ...they need to both support and help each other who cares who captures what unless it has some specific gameplay purposes ei. who captures Athen in relation to who can allign Yoguslavia ...or who installs Vichy ...or who alligns Iraq etc etc.

[Froonp]

I ALWAYS play Italy - Ge as ONE ...they need to both support and help each other who cares who captures what unless it has some specific gameplay purposes ei. who captures Athen in relation to who can allign Yoguslavia ...or who installs Vichy ...or who alligns Iraq etc etc.

You're right that they need both to support and help each other, but I do not agree that "who cares about who captures what", because the game is won or lost on this basis, and as a man of Italian Origins [;)] I'm fed up of German players taking the lot in front of the Italian player.

In game's I'm in, either as the German or the Italian, I always care to let the Italian fulfill his own objectives. If I'm the German, I ask him beforehand, and we adjust our mutual help so that both our goals can be fulfilled. I may ask him sacrifices, but he deserves that the German does some to him too.

You'll notice that in RAW, in all player / countries distributions that are cited, when there are enough players to play the game, Germany and Italy are never given to a single player. Italy and Japan will be given to the same player, but not Italy / Germany. This is a too strong combo.

And I could say exactly all the same for the CW / USA association.

[CBoehm]

yeah and France is given to the USSR ...I know that Harry intended these setups to create conflicts of interest ...but I have just always played the game as a team-game ...since we/I think this is more friendly&fun-&-goodtime-lets-go-for-a-beer-afterwards ....
 
Well not entirely true ...we did once play one or two games with individual victory conditions, but after the slightly inexperienced USSR player threw the game away on some stupid "MUHHAHA-Im the USSR who doesnt care or listen to what the wallies say because Im gonna win alone!!!" we decided against it ....to me the game just takes too much time and effort to have some misguided jerk throw the game away, which in my experience is much MUCH more likely to happen with individual victory conditions.

[trees]

I thought Kai's Italian directives were excellent and perhaps a little less Barbarossa-centric than a previous poster, though that poster didn't flesh out a build skeleton as much and would probably agree with this one. I do like to build the Aquila CV sometimes though to have fun with in the mid-game as part of a Mid-East or Gibraltar strategy but it is an expensive investment.

I've always enjoyed playing Italy starting in Third Reich and played them in my first game of WiF so long ago. I decided their goal would be South Africa and built TRS to get there without walking, which made the CW pay extra attention to me early in the game, oops.

A common Axis mistake on a two-person team is for each to work out German and Japanese impulses and moves first and then figure out what to do with Italy as an afterthought. I think Italy should strongly cooperate with Germany on an impluse by impluse basis. Once Barbarossa starts I might max out Italian production with German loans, but before then loans will probably depend on if the Russians are trying to delay a '41 Barbarossa. I'm a little more accustomed to playing 2-player WiF though, your mileage may vary.

[composer99]

Italy is very unwise to put its home country in the Baltics after the fall of Italy. They are usually quick to be abandoned by the Wehrmacht when it is on the retreat from the USSR in '43-'44, and there is no way the Italians will be able to stand up to the Red Army. If Italy wants to ensure its survival, even if incompletely conquered, till the end of the game, it should probably avoid such a choice.

[Incy]

One thing that haven't been mentioned is that it can be a good ide to have italy install Vichy.
Vichy france shares activity limits with the installing power, and if it ever becomes active (very common if north africa is still french), the Vichy fleet will be a lot more effective if it has italian action limits.
 
To have italy install Vichy, italy must have a land unit in Paris upon Vichyfication. This is not always easy, but in many cases Paris falls early in a turn and italy can move a unit into Paris after the germans take the city. For this reason (and to help with garrission/holding flanks) I usually rail an italian (fastmoving) landunit to behind the french front as soon as possible.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Incy

One thing that haven't been mentioned is that it can be a good ide to have italy install Vichy.
Vichy france shares activity limits with the installing power, and if it ever becomes active (very common if north africa is still french), the Vichy fleet will be a lot more effective if it has italian action limits.

To have italy install Vichy, italy must have a land unit in Paris upon Vichyfication. This is not always easy, but in many cases Paris falls early in a turn and italy can move a unit into Paris after the germans take the city. For this reason (and to help with garrission/holding flanks) I usually rail an italian (fastmoving) landunit to behind the french front as soon as possible.

I've never seen Vich France active in 15 games. Not even hostile.
Why a western ally would make it active or hostile ? Nothing warrants that. If North Africa is Vichy, just don't go there. The cons outbalance the pro imo.
I always prefered to land in France, force the Axis to collapse, and then Vichy territory becomes Free French.

[hakon]

ORIGINAL: composer99

Italy is very unwise to put its home country in the Baltics after the fall of Italy. They are usually quick to be abandoned by the Wehrmacht when it is on the retreat from the USSR in '43-'44, and there is no way the Italians will be able to stand up to the Red Army. If Italy wants to ensure its survival, even if incompletely conquered, till the end of the game, it should probably avoid such a choice.

Of course, Yugoslavia is always the preferred choice for second home country. The strategy I outlined, assumed a "kitchen sink" barbarossa strategy, however. In my experience (and opionion), such a strategy is not complete without a No Bessarabia gambit, which requires a dow on Yugoslavia.

On the other hand, if an all out Barbarossa is successful, the Baltics can be very secure for Italy for a long time.




For those that consider using a baltic country for resereve italian home land a bit gamey, I agree fully. It is firmly withing the rules, though, and quite important if using a strategy where Italy risks being knocked out early, with most of her air force abroad. If you see a conquest coming, you can even save some of your navy and land units. If the AIO is to have a chance at beating a player that plays in the same way, it needs all the advantages it can get. I, for one, find that my human opponent use these kinds of strategies all the time.

I already wrote a proposal on how to limit the AI to more historical paths in the "Historical AI" thread, so that players (and reviewers for magazines, etc, that often only plays the game once) that want more historical outcomes can force a more historical game.

[Froonp]

For those that consider using a baltic country for resereve italian home land a bit gamey, I agree fully. It is firmly withing the rules, though, and quite important if using a strategy where Italy risks being knocked out early, with most of her air force abroad. If you see a conquest coming, you can even save some of your navy and land units. If the AIO is to have a chance at beating a player that plays in the same way, it needs all the advantages it can get. I, for one, find that my human opponent use these kinds of strategies all the time.

I just would like to stress out one little detail that lies within this sentence : "you see a conquest coming, you can even save some of your navy and land units."

While this is true, this needs to be REALLY fine tuned, because, if it is not, traying to "save some of your navy and land units" can accelerate Italy's fall.

I'd add that a conquered Italy is never a good thing, even if only incomplete, because with half the activity limit, no production + little or no force pool, it is down to a Minor Country level.

[hakon]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

While this is true, this needs to be REALLY fine tuned, because, if it is not, traying to "save some of your navy and land units" can accelerate Italy's fall.

I fully agree. Italy should attempt to keep the allies from achieving the "biggest garrison" requirement for as long as they can. In fact, in the original post, i did stress that you try to hold Italy for as long as possible, by a stubborn defense. But do keep in mind the context (all out barbarossa, including Bessarabia Gambit), here. If you cannot crush the USSR or lure the allies into invading France early, the allies will be in a position to conquer Italy in 1943 or 1944 at the latest.

Saving whatever remains of the navy is reasonably easy, since they can always just return to another port, outside of Italy. Saving land forces is usually restricted to what you can rail/transport out of italy in the last turn, and then ONLY if you know that there is no way to keep italy alive for more than 1-2 turns more.

Saving any unflipped aircraft stationed in italy can be achieved by using it to fly naval air (and then land in Yugoslavia/France), or by simple rebase, which can usually be achieved with a simple air impulse.

[Froonp]

Just to add detail to what you said :

ORIGINAL: hakon
I fully agree. Italy should attempt to keep the allies from achieving the "biggest garrison" requirement for as long as they can. In fact, in the original post, i did stress that you try to hold Italy for as long as possible, by a stubborn defense. But do keep in mind the context (all out barbarossa, including Bessarabia Gambit), here. If you cannot crush the USSR or lure the allies into invading France early, the allies will be in a position to conquer Italy in 1943 or 1944 at the latest.

Beware that this can be much sooner. I've seen Italy fall in S/O 41, in a Barb 40 with no France strategy. I agree that this is extreme, but I wouldn't be surprised to see Italy fall in fall 42 under a "kitchen sink 41 barb". The CW can invade Italy from mid 41 if it built AMPH from the turn 1 (which I always do, except if a France 1st Strategy is seen).

Saving whatever remains of the navy is reasonably easy, since they can always just return to another port, outside of Italy. Saving land forces is usually restricted to what you can rail/transport out of italy in the last turn, and then ONLY if you know that there is no way to keep italy alive for more than 1-2 turns more.

Saving any unflipped aircraft stationed in italy can be achieved by using it to fly naval air (and then land in Yugoslavia/France), or by simple rebase, which can usually be achieved with a simple air impulse.

Usually this is impossible to save aircraft, as you already used them to try to save Italy, so they are flipped (because of their mission). The only one that are saved, are those that could rebase outside Italy during the turn, after their air mission. But even them are of limited numbers, because you would only begin to do this (rebase aircrafts outside Italy) when it is blattantly clear that the garrison ration will be broken whatever place the aircraft rebase to.

Usually you can only save a couple of land units, that are either capable of walking out of Italy, or railing out of Italy, and as you also do this late in the turn, when you are really sure that the garrison ration is lost.

[hakon]

Exactly the possibility of being conquered in 41 or 42 is why I stress the defence of Italy. Imo, Italy should always be able to survive until the US is in the game, unless they make a mistake.

42 is perhaps the most critical period. The US will often be active early enough to make an impact during the summer of 42, which means that significant resources are needed to defend. By using most available garr and mil (both german and italian) for defence, as well as keeping some mech divs, graziani, etc in various spots in italy, you should be able to defend most cities, while still being able to blitz any invasion force back to sea even in 42. (Often at the cost of risking partisans in Yugoslavia or France).

In this scenario, it is also vital to extract all land units (except territorials) from africa before italy joins the war, as Africa is likely to be out of supply anyway.

The only situation where I would consider preparing for evacuation of Italy, would be late 43 and onwards, and only if the allies station enough troops in the med to be able to guarantee a conquest of Italy. The decision to flee should ideally be taken at the beginning of a turn instead of at the end, to save as many aircraft as possible. (Saving 10 aircraft, Graziani and a few inf/mech/arm is worth it even if italy falls 1 turn earlier, imo.)

[Froonp]

The only situation where I would consider preparing for evacuation of Italy, would be late 43 and onwards, and only if the allies station enough troops in the med to be able to guarantee a conquest of Italy. The decision to flee should ideally be taken at the beginning of a turn instead of at the end, to save as many aircraft as possible. (Saving 10 aircraft, Graziani and a few inf/mech/arm is worth it even if italy falls 1 turn earlier, imo.)

My own experience was always to try to hang to Italy the longest possible. I never "evacuated" early as you describe. My opinion is that, gaining a turn may make you gaining a whole season, sometimes a year, because the turn you gain might be the latest "usable" turn for the Allies to conquer Italy in the year.

I have often seen Italy being conquered 1 year latter than it could have had because of reasons linked to lost impulses for the Allies. Impulses can be lost to organisation problems (either because of the Axis antishipping actions, or because of poor TRS rebasing, poor planning, etc...), or because of the Weather, or other fronts needs.

So, as Italy, I want to add whatever reasons for the Allies to lose time conquering me, because the fall of Italy is a real bottleneck in the progression of the Allies in Europe, hence in the game. The longer I hold, the longer they are paralyzed trying to make me fall.

[hakon]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

My own experience was always to try to hang to Italy the longest possible. I never "evacuated" early as you describe. My opinion is that, gaining a turn may make you gaining a whole season, sometimes a year, because the turn you gain might be the latest "usable" turn for the Allies to conquer Italy in the year.

I have often seen Italy being conquered 1 year latter than it could have had because of reasons linked to lost impulses for the Allies. Impulses can be lost to organisation problems (either because of the Axis antishipping actions, or because of poor TRS rebasing, poor planning, etc...), or because of the Weather, or other fronts needs.

So, as Italy, I want to add whatever reasons for the Allies to lose time conquering me, because the fall of Italy is a real bottleneck in the progression of the Allies in Europe, hence in the game. The longer I hold, the longer they are paralyzed trying to make me fall.

Well, as previously mentioned, evacuating Italy in this scenario is a bit speculative on my part. So far, in all the three games I have tried an all out barbarossa with the western Axis, the allies have surrendered once it became clear that Russia would be conquered. I guess I will continue to repeat that strategy until somebody can show me how to stop it.

And I agree with you that Italy should not try to evacuate if there is any chance of holding as much as half a year extra. Typically, full evacuation is only an issue if the allies has already landed on a previous turn, but failed the conquest conditions by a small margin, but has lots of reserves in north Africa, Sardinia, etc, that they can easily send in the next turn. If conquest becomes a fact in mid-turn, a fraction of the forces may still be saved though, by sending them out.

[Incy]

If North africa, and especially Tunisia is Vichy, I think it's qite common to make Vichy Active, Tunisia is just to good an aircraft carrier to pass up. There's also Syria, which in many cases can be the only thing blocking the southern LL-route to russia (India->Persian gulf->Iraq->Syria->Turkey->USSR, or alternatively India->red sea->Egypt->Syria->Turkey->USSR)

Also, Vichy will normally have 2 resources in africa, and sometimes an Iraqi oil. As Vichy, I always try to build (or move if I get them for free) CP to transport those resources. With german action limits, naval action limits for this is often not enough of a priority. With Italian limits, it's easy as cake. The resources (and oil) are sent to Vichy factories, and will make sure Vichy fills with BP/oil much sooner than otherwise.

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: Incy

One thing that haven't been mentioned is that it can be a good ide to have italy install Vichy.
Vichy france shares activity limits with the installing power, and if it ever becomes active (very common if north africa is still french), the Vichy fleet will be a lot more effective if it has italian action limits.

To have italy install Vichy, italy must have a land unit in Paris upon Vichyfication. This is not always easy, but in many cases Paris falls early in a turn and italy can move a unit into Paris after the germans take the city. For this reason (and to help with garrission/holding flanks) I usually rail an italian (fastmoving) landunit to behind the french front as soon as possible.

I've never seen Vich France active in 15 games. Not even hostile.
Why a western ally would make it active or hostile ? Nothing warrants that. If North Africa is Vichy, just don't go there. The cons outbalance the pro imo.
I always prefered to land in France, force the Axis to collapse, and then Vichy territory becomes Free French.

[Mziln]

Assuming the Commonwealth and the USA are at war with Italy.
[font="times new roman"] [/font]
These requirements should be fairly easy to meet to cause an Incomplete Conquest of Italy.
 
2. The Allies control Tripoli.
3. The Allies control any printed factory hex in Italy (apart from Rome).
4. The Allied garrison value (see 13.1) in Italy is greater than the Italian garrison value there (remember, Sicily is part of Italy).
 
As far as "Activity Limits" are concerned Incomplete Conquest will slightly reduce Italy's activities. Italy can still choose its own Air, Combined, Land, or Naval activities.
[font="times new roman"] [/font]
If Germany would be in supply and hold Rome at the end of the next year they could liberate Italy for a year.
[font="times new roman"] [/font]
 But...
 
If the USA has a DoW only against Italy (as in the examples in the RaW) and the USA and were to incompletely conquer Italy. The USA would throw all German units out of Italy. This would make all hexes in Italy (with the exception of hexes controlled by the Commonwealth) controlled by the USA.
[font="times new roman"] [/font]
If more than one major power from the same side controls the capital and printed factories in a home country, the major power with the greatest influence in that home country is the conqueror.
 
Use this priority to determine who has the greatest influence:
1. Whoever controls most factories in the home country (with the capital counting as an additional 3 factories for this calculation).
2. Whoever has the highest garrison value (see 13.1) in the home country.
3. Whoever occupied the home country’s last factory or capital city.
 
In this case all that is necessary would to be for the USA to be in control of the printed factory hex in Italy (apart from Rome).