Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: npilgaard

ORIGINAL: Froonp
Nit picking :

HQ support (up to +3),

up to +2.5 please, there is no rounding when counting HQ support.

True, but iirc numbers are rounded before being compared (at least that is how I understand it), which means that if no other .5 modifiers are present, then a 5-reorg HQ will provide a +3 bonus (which is often the case).
But you are of course right - the HQ itself provides only a +2.5 bonus. [:)]

Regards
Nikolaj

Yes, I think you understood it correctly (cf. chapter 2.6 of RAW).
But playing with the 2d10, 20 factors attacking 6 factors makes it a +6,7 attack. Adding HQ support for 2,5 makes it a +9,2 attack, so in some cases the 5-reorg HQ only adds 2 to the attack, depending on the odds.

[c92nichj]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: npilgaard

ORIGINAL: Froonp
Nit picking :

up to +2.5 please, there is no rounding when counting HQ support.

True, but iirc numbers are rounded before being compared (at least that is how I understand it), which means that if no other .5 modifiers are present, then a 5-reorg HQ will provide a +3 bonus (which is often the case).
But you are of course right - the HQ itself provides only a +2.5 bonus. [:)]

Regards
Nikolaj

Yes, I think you understood it correctly (cf. chapter 2.6 of RAW).
But playing with the 2d10, 20 factors attacking 6 factors makes it a +6,7 attack. Adding HQ support for 2,5 makes it a +9,2 attack, so in some cases the 5-reorg HQ only adds 2 to the attack, depending on the odds.

If playing with fractional odds the odds modifier is first determined so a +6.7 have 70% chance of being +7 and 30% chance of +6 then other modifications are added meaning a +3(+2.5 rounded) for the HQ to either +9 or +10.

[npilgaard]

ORIGINAL: Froonp
But playing with the 2d10, 20 factors attacking 6 factors makes it a +6,7 attack. Adding HQ support for 2,5 makes it a +9,2 attack, so in some cases the 5-reorg HQ only adds 2 to the attack, depending on the odds.

I guess that depends on how RaW is read.
Another way of reading it is:
11.16.5: 'Odds ratios'. These are calculated seperately (and rolled for, if using option 40).
Thus the modifier from odds always results in a whole number.
Next section of the rules, 'Rolling Dice', includes all other modifiers, such as blitz bonus etc.
Thus odd-modofiers are seperate, and doesn't affect .5 modifers from blitz, HQ support etc.
I agree that this is maybe reading RaW in a very 'inflexible' way - the idea of just assigning all modifiers incl. odds in one go and then roll for fractions is somewhat easier, and sounds reasonable (in our group we do it strictly RaW unless adopting house rules, though, as the exact wording of the Raw can be important when trying to solve different views on how to read the rules).

Regards
Nikolaj

[Froonp]

If playing with fractional odds the odds modifier is first determined so a +6.7 have 70% chance of being +7 and 30% chance of +6 then other modifications are added meaning a +3(+2.5 rounded) for the HQ to either +9 or +10.

Calculating the odd ratio is a long process that is described in the rule from 11.16.1 to 11.16.5. HQ support is done at 11.16.3 as a shift to the odd ratio by 1 level (playing 1d10). In 2d10, it is changed to add or substract half the reorg value. As it is part of the process of calculating the odd ratio, as Ground Support is, I take it that you can add it to the un-rounded odd ratio, and round the result.

I can understand people rounding the odd ratio first, and then adding the rounded HQ support too, but IMO this makes the attacker benefit from 2 cumulative roundings, which is not good for the game, especially because the defender does not benefit from the same rounding, on the contrary, as his 5-reorg HQ rounds to 2 when he substract 2,5 to the odd ratio.

These are too much of rounding advantages for the attacker, and I think & feel that keeping the odd ratio (playing 2d10) un-rounded until HQ support is added is more logical and more fair.

Anyway, I'm happy to add this to the list of questions we have for Rules clarifications.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: npilgaard
(Re: post 57 in thread: AI for MWiF - USSR - since this is the AI thread and the other is for Russia strategy I found it better to reply here)

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
Here are some excepts from the current AIO design document about the value of hexes. (...)

Very impressive!

Since the post is 1.5 years old, a lot of the stuff have probably been changed, but nevertheless, a few comments:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
Attacking units
Focusing on a single front line, the FM determines the land units he has available with which to attack. (...) What he now knows is the highest number of combat factors that he can bring to bear on 1, 2, 3, or more hexes.

Generally the number of combat factors are used in the description of the AI evaluation to define the 'combat-value' of a stack. However, I find it also very important (and sometimes even more important) to look at the various bonuses, especially if using 2d10 attack table. Fx. when Germany doing blitz attack in Russia from fx 3 sides against a hex, there can easily be +7 to +9 blitz bonus for ARM/MECH, which will almost guarantee a succesful attack.
Other situations where bonuses are more important than factors when attacking, are when attacking many enemy factors with fairly few factors (ie at low odds). Fx Japanese attacks on Chinese mountain hexes (using the non-MWiF Asia map), or when invading key hexes (eg Gibraltar). Even at odds 1:1 (+2) or 2:1 (+4) other types of bonuses can changes this to a reasonable attack (attacker must be ready to task loses of course), fx flipped units (up to +5), HQ support (up to +3), PARAs, etc.

This is also the case when creating a defensive line. When in the open in clear weather, any MECH is usually better than any INF no matter their combat factors, since the MECH provides a -2 modifer to attacks.
There are of course exceptions, eg.:
- it can be nice to have a 'casualty-unit' in a stack. Fx 1 ARM, 1 good DIV and then a GAR, MIL or maybe INF to take the loss. Depending on how important it is to hold the hex, compared to how important it is to avoid taking heavy loses.
- if only fairly low number of combat factors are in the hex, then a few combat factors extra have a significant effect, since attack bonuses based on odds are relative.
Fx:
One 5-factor MECH in a hex is attacked by 25 factors. This is a +10-2 = +8 attack
One 8-factor INF is defending the hex instead: +6.25 attack
This aspect is also important when flying ground support. Defensive ground support can be very effective if only a few factors are defending and the attacker gets most of his bonuses from odds (eg an invasion: 14 factors attacking 2 factors: +14; 14 factors attacking 2 factors+2 ground support: +7).
Offensive ground support are rarely that effective - usually better to ground strike. One exception is when attacking few defending factors but don't have enough factors yourself to get very high odds (i.e. attacking with 10 factors against 2 defending factors: +10. 5 ground support factors would increase this to 15 vs 2: +15 attack)

So ideally it is all about bonuses when using 2d10 - the combat factors are just one of the ways to get bonuses.

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
Tactical mode
What the FM needs to determine is which of 4 modes of attack to use: (1) destroy enemy units this impulse, (2) disrupt enemy units this impulse so they can be destroyed in a later impulse (or turn), (3) maneuver so better attacks can be made in the future, or (4) push the enemy back.
(...)
By extrapolating the change from A1 to A2 over the remaining impulses in the turn, the FM judges whether disruption is a viable tactic for the current turn.

Most often it is a matter of disrupting enemy units for attacking the current turn also, I think.
The choice of selecting a 'full' disrupting tactic for the current impulse with no follow up land attacks until next impulse, is probably mostly related to an air-action, which is fairly uncommon.
Even during a combined impulse most powers have a decent number of air moves and can do ground strikes and after having seen their effects determine whether to attack this impulse or to wait.

Another aspect (which is somehow adressed in the AI description already, though): two major powers working together: Eg Italy doing the bombing and Germany doing the land attacking (or CW/US working together). Thus Italy trying to disrupt should not only be checked against italian benefit, but also against German benefit this impulse. (Same for invasions: one power moving ships, another doing the invasions).

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
Direct attacks to kill enemy units is usually the best tactic but it might cause too many friendly casualties or disruptions.

Perhaps add some aggresiveness-variable for each power, which is randomly determined for each new game. So in some games eg Germany is slightly more aggressive (ie willing to attack on a slightly lower 'potential benefit per casualty') than in other games. That will add some variation and unpredictability (sp?). This may also be linked to overall strategies - ie high risk strategies (ie Sea Lion, Japan goes for Pearl Harbour) requires more willingness to do risky attacks.

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
At the beginning of each impulse, the FM makes assessment A1 for each of his frontlines and records for each side the number of: (1) face up/down corps, (2) face up/down divisions, (3) face up/down tactical bombers, (4) face up/down strategic bombers (re: carpet bombing), (5) face up/down fighters, (6) face up/down ATRs, (7) units capable of immediate paradrops, (8) units capable of immediate invasions, and (9) offensive chits available

Maybe add some more information when determining the status of a front, than only the numbers of units. Fx combat factors (there is a large difference between a red circled 4 or 5 factor bomber, and an old regular 2 or 3 factor bomber), and potential combat bonuses (i.e. blitz bonuses, but only if clear terrain is available, and the weather is fine).
Thus some sort of point system showing 'total strength' in current front - maybe some average of number of units (more units meaning more versaility, more aircraft allows more air missions etc.), unit factors and potential unit bonuses.

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
Based on the assessments and estimates of land units only, decide on your situation: (1) desperate defense, (2) strongly defensive, (3) somewhat defensive, (4) balanced, (5) somewhat aggressive, (6) attacking, or (7) going in for the kill. To some degree the 1st and 7th will depend on the proximity of objective hexes to the front line.

Not sure whether you have included air units in this assessment since then, but imho they are very important in determining the overall situation on the ground. If in an air superiority-situation, a few bombers make significant difference. If land-units-only suggests '(4) balanced' or '(5) somewhat aggressive' a few lucky ground strikes may make it worth attacking, while it would otherwise be far to risky.
Similarily, the defender being able to double the defending combat factors plays a significant role as to whether to attack or not.

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
1. Hexes that have direct value in CVs define what we are trying to defend (or capture from the German point of view).
2. The relative strength of land forces in the theater of operations tells us whether we are attacking or defending.
3. When defending we look for other units that might come to our aid, be they our own units from other theaters or from our allies. Actually, we might look for other units to help even when on the attack.
4. We calculate the length of the frontline we need to hold, and the average number and defensive strength of units we can put in each hex.
5. We decide whether to hold every hex, every other hex, or every third hex depending on the strength we can muster per hex for each possibility.
6. We worry about overruns.
7. We choose hexes with good defensive terrain.
8. We try different placements protecting the more valuable hexes first.
9. We perform post evaluations of placements critically, looking for weaknesses that the attacker might exploit.
10. We reduce the number of valuable hexes we are trying to defend if the post evaluations find too much fault with the placements.

Very well tought out, I think [:)]
Maybe add some kind of 'buying time' variable - i.e. Russia may not be so interested in trying to defend her hexes as to keep her army intact and wait for her counterattack.
Placing the speed bumps will slow down the Germans, even though they are not placed as a part of a line of defence, and are 100% sure to be killed, with minimal losses for the Germans.
Also, 'hero-cities' may be worth considering.

All in all - very interesting to see how such a complex AI can be designed by keeping reducing each aspect into smaller parts. When I fist heard on an AI for WiF I thought it to be rather impossible, but I must say that I am being converted by reading about the details of this approach [;)]

Regards
Nikolaj

Thank you for your comments. They are helpful to me.

I am planning on converting everything to Infantry CVs. For example, the value of tactical bombing factors will be based on the recent history in the game (in each theater of operations). The value would be the largest of using those factors for ground strike, offensive ground support, and defensive ground support. The logic is that a measure of how effective tactical air was over the last turn that had the same weather as the current weather, is a good estimate for the current turn. At times, the weather will have to be predicted, but the logic stays the same (using a weighted average of the possible weather).

For the 2D10 CRT, an odds modification is roughly equivalent to a 50% increase in the strength factors in the hex. Doubling the attacking strength on the hex is +2; tripling it is +4. This calculation/estimation could be done more precisely, but I believe a rough approximation here is sufficient. An important piece of information that is needed is the average defensive strength in land attacks. If the front line contains stacks worth 4 each (say in China) versus 8 each (say in Russia) versus 10 each (say in France), then the worth of ground support changes dramatically. The number of units in each hex is crucial for estimating the worth of ground strikes.

So, if a tactical air unit is used for offensive ground support, it will add its tactical factors to the hex. For a 6 factor Stuka, that could be from a 150% increase (for a 4 factor hex) to a 50% increase (for a 12 factor hex). A successful ground strike is likely to disorganize 2 of 3 units in a hex (.6 * 3 = 1.8). Given that each disorganized unit is a +2 modification, that yields +4 or a 200% increase in CVs. This could be simplified to using tactical air for ground support against a hex containing a single unit and for ground strike against a hex with multiple units, but I want something more precise at this point.

From these rather convoluted calculations come a single ratio to convert tactical air strength into land CVs. Actually this whole subsystem is much more complicated because of the need to calculate the effect of fighters and AA in stopping the air mission from succeeding. I also have adjustments for the range of the air units, just as I do for the movement points of the land units.

Then there is also terrain. I haven't thought that through completely yet, but it will be based on the current front line. If there are occupied Clear hexes in the front line, then I will use those hexes for the calculations. There might be only a single Clear terrain hex in the front line, but since there are multiple impulses per turn, many tactical air units could be used against that single hex. Defending France in 1940 comes to mind.

The worth of fighters in an indirect value, based on the worth of air missions. Fighters either enable and prevent the success of air missions, so the probability of the fighter enabling or preventing is multiplied times the value of the air mission (e.g., tactical air factors converted to land CVs). I have this laid out for strategic, naval air, paradrops, air transports, and air resupply missions too.

I also have made a first pass at doing something similar for converting the value of naval units into land CVs. It is hard given the 3 types of naval combat that are possible.

However, the worth of armor, mech, AT, tank buster units etc. is straightforward with this design principle of basing current value on the current front line and/or past perfromance.

As for cooperation between major powers, I see each major power evaluating what it can do with its units and then comparing those values to what could be achieved if an ally decided what they do (or where they go). The negiotiation between major powers' Foreign Liaison will be tricky to write at first, but I do not see any real problems there.

I am hesitant about adding aggressiveness as a variable to the AIO. First I want predictability to see how well it performs when always trying to maximize some metric (probably a net CV gain/loss). After I know that it is doing its best reliably, then I can start tweaking things.

Besides the average strength per hex for the front line, I also will track the average strength (CV value) per unit by unit type. Several aggregations will be maintained too. For instance, for air superiority, offensive armor, and defensive armor. The purpose behind tracking these numbers is to assess whether the major power (in a specific theater) is ahead or behind, and whether to attack or defend.

[composer99]

I would imagine that shore bombardment would be converted into CVs in the same manner as ground support, although given that it cannot be intercepted, it would be a simpler calculation (none of that messy air combat or AA fire to deal with).

[Shannon V. OKeets]

Here is another variable for the AIO that I worked out on the plane last weekend. These will be used to determine how to protect/attack sea areas that are being used for production or operational logistics. Unit transportation is a measure of how much the sea route is used for transporting units overseas. If you have ideas as to how to measure threats, I wuold be interested in hearing them. By the way, Current and Potential are for the units currently in the sea area and those that could be moved into it this turn.
==================================

Sea Routes
Alternative sea routes have the same end points.

Sea Route
∙ List of sea area IDs in sorted order
∙ End points: 2 sea area IDs: first and last in the list
∙ # of RP currently using the sea route
∙ # of BP currently using the sea route
∙ # of units being supplied using the sea route
∙ Unit transportation: high, medium, low, none (how to measure this?)
∙ Threat level: high, medium, low, none

The threat level for a sea route takes the aggregate of the expected losses for the sea areas in the sea route and determines whether the aggregate losses are acceptable. But how precisely?

Sea Area Threat Level: high, medium, low, none
∙ Strength of enemy units and their maximum sea box: current & potential
∙ Strength of friendly units and their maximum sea box: current & potential
∙ Expected CV loss to enemy units based on current and potential forces
∙ Expected CV loss to friendly units based on current and potential forces

The threat level measures whether the friendly losses are acceptable with enemy losses possibly being a mitigating factor. But how precisely?

[Froonp]

∙ Unit transportation: high, medium, low, none (how to measure this?)

- Look how many units are loaded / unloaded in ports in that sea area ?
- Look how many loaded TRS / AMPH / SCS are currently in station in a sea box section in that sea area ?
- Makes statistics about the last turn's same factors ?
- Have consolidated statistics about these factors accumulating from turn to turn (kind of the "mobile means" "mobile averages" (?) -- Moyennes mobiles in French -- not sure about the translation in English of this Math term).

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

∙ Unit transportation: high, medium, low, none (how to measure this?)

- Look how many units are loaded / unloaded in ports in that sea area ?
- Look how many loaded TRS / AMPH / SCS are currently in station in a sea box section in that sea area ?
- Makes statistics about the last turn's same factors ?
- Have consolidated statistics about these factors accumulating from turn to turn (kind of the "mobile means" "mobile averages" (?) -- Moyennes mobiles in French -- not sure about the translation in English of this Math term).

Thanks, this clarified my thinking for Unit Transportation.

I will go with just the present, since the analysis of attacking or defending a sea route will be for the current impulse/turn.

The only sea areas that need to be examined are the first and last, since I am concerned with the sea route. Note that a sea route could be a single sea area (e.g., the Bay of Biscay, where CW units load in England and invade into northern France).

Now your first two entires are all that need to be performed: currently loaded, could load immediately. Though your second entry needs to consider empty transports at sea that could pick up units from a port or coastal hex. Hmmm,[8|] there is also the possibility of a naval transport leaving from some other port, stopping in the starting sea area for the sea route, to pick up a unit, and then continuing on to drop it off during the return to base phase. For example, when evacuating Dunkirk, the naval transport could originate from Malta.
---
Perhaps I will use historical data (from earlier in the game) if I am evaluating the importance of controlling a sea area (but not a sea route). But I would also like to include future use of a sea area. For instance, the USA typically doesn't ship units to Europe until 1942, but then will do so heavily. Germany should be aware that those shipments are about to start for positioning its submarines.

[npilgaard]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
∙ Unit transportation: high, medium, low, none (how to measure this?)

I find that it is often the range of the TRSs, the deployment cities and the destinations that defines 'valuable' sea routes when regarding transportation of units, esp. for the US.
Usually new units are deployed at US westcoast or US eastcoast and then being transported to Pacific of Europe. Often TRS have a range of 3 or 4, and the available routes to reach a give destination are often quite limited.

So, as already mentioned, take into account which units are to be transported this turn (and maybe also take into consideration next urn, in order to establish presence along the sea route at end of turn, to give the enemy 'in the presence of the enemy' penalty if he moves into an area in the sea route), and which sea routes are available.

Even if a number of TRSs have moved at a given sea route, if that route becomes heavily contested, then perhaps another route is open, thus it is not necessary to give that first route a high priority and fight to keep it open.

So make a check on all potential sea routes and make the one with the lowest threat level highest on the unit transportation priority list.

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
(...) whether the friendly losses are acceptable with enemy losses possibly being a mitigating factor. But how precisely?

Some general thoughts (maybe to general - perhaps more specific points will be better?):

Overall strategic situation:
Attrition:
- if outgunned and on the defensive: avoid seroius losses. Enemy losses must be significantly higher than what one self lose
- if equal strength: try to get slightly better than 1:1 ratio losses
- if having upper hand: ok to take slightly worse (how much: depending on level of superiority) losses than enemy

Production:
If production directed to theatre (and production in general also taken somewhat into account) higher than enemy: ok to accept less than 1:1 losses.

Time:
If very important to buy time: accept losses (eg axis late '45)
If very important to hurry up: accept losses (eg allies late '45, or when significantly behind schedule)

Objectives:
More important objective means higher acceptance of losses (fx: major invasions (Italy, Japan) will justify significant losses)

Expected future value:
If expected future is low, then accept heavy losses, and try to inflict damage (Japanese kamikaze, Japan / Italy fleets fighting allied invasion fleets invading Homeland)
Otoh, if expected future value is high: avoid taking losses (eg US/Japanese CVs early in the Pacific war)
This also applies to units being transported (although 'future' may here mean current impulse/turn/next turn). I.e. an US MAR on the Pacific map in '44 is worth more than its point cost indicates, compared to eg. a MOT or MECH (well, compared to most other land units, probably [:)])

All of these factors can be added to get an idea of 1) how much 'value' can be potentially lost and 2) how much 'value'-damage can be inflicted on enemy. These two can then be compared, and depending on aggressiveness, one can go for it if 2) > 1)

Regards
Nikolaj

[c92nichj]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

If playing with fractional odds the odds modifier is first determined so a +6.7 have 70% chance of being +7 and 30% chance of +6 then other modifications are added meaning a +3(+2.5 rounded) for the HQ to either +9 or +10.

Calculating the odd ratio is a long process that is described in the rule from 11.16.1 to 11.16.5. HQ support is done at 11.16.3 as a shift to the odd ratio by 1 level (playing 1d10). In 2d10, it is changed to add or substract half the reorg value. As it is part of the process of calculating the odd ratio, as Ground Support is, I take it that you can add it to the un-rounded odd ratio, and round the result.

I can understand people rounding the odd ratio first, and then adding the rounded HQ support too, but IMO this makes the attacker benefit from 2 cumulative roundings, which is not good for the game, especially because the defender does not benefit from the same rounding, on the contrary, as his 5-reorg HQ rounds to 2 when he substract 2,5 to the odd ratio.

These are too much of rounding advantages for the attacker, and I think & feel that keeping the odd ratio (playing 2d10) un-rounded until HQ support is added is more logical and more fair.

Anyway, I'm happy to add this to the list of questions we have for Rules clarifications.

I agree with you that it is more logical and fair to add all modifications and then roll for fractional odds after that, but was severly beaten down on the main wiflist when asking about it, re-reading the rules in combination with the chart also convinced me that they were right to round two times.
But a clarification would be good.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: npilgaard

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
∙ Unit transportation: high, medium, low, none (how to measure this?)

I find that it is often the range of the TRSs, the deployment cities and the destinations that defines 'valuable' sea routes when regarding transportation of units, esp. for the US.
Usually new units are deployed at US westcoast or US eastcoast and then being transported to Pacific of Europe. Often TRS have a range of 3 or 4, and the available routes to reach a give destination are often quite limited.

So, as already mentioned, take into account which units are to be transported this turn (and maybe also take into consideration next urn, in order to establish presence along the sea route at end of turn, to give the enemy 'in the presence of the enemy' penalty if he moves into an area in the sea route), and which sea routes are available.

Even if a number of TRSs have moved at a given sea route, if that route becomes heavily contested, then perhaps another route is open, thus it is not necessary to give that first route a high priority and fight to keep it open.

So make a check on all potential sea routes and make the one with the lowest threat level highest on the unit transportation priority list.

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
(...) whether the friendly losses are acceptable with enemy losses possibly being a mitigating factor. But how precisely?

Some general thoughts (maybe to general - perhaps more specific points will be better?):

Overall strategic situation:
Attrition:
- if outgunned and on the defensive: avoid seroius losses. Enemy losses must be significantly higher than what one self lose
- if equal strength: try to get slightly better than 1:1 ratio losses
- if having upper hand: ok to take slightly worse (how much: depending on level of superiority) losses than enemy

Production:
If production directed to theatre (and production in general also taken somewhat into account) higher than enemy: ok to accept less than 1:1 losses.

Time:
If very important to buy time: accept losses (eg axis late '45)
If very important to hurry up: accept losses (eg allies late '45, or when significantly behind schedule)

Objectives:
More important objective means higher acceptance of losses (fx: major invasions (Italy, Japan) will justify significant losses)

Expected future value:
If expected future is low, then accept heavy losses, and try to inflict damage (Japanese kamikaze, Japan / Italy fleets fighting allied invasion fleets invading Homeland)
Otoh, if expected future value is high: avoid taking losses (eg US/Japanese CVs early in the Pacific war)
This also applies to units being transported (although 'future' may here mean current impulse/turn/next turn). I.e. an US MAR on the Pacific map in '44 is worth more than its point cost indicates, compared to eg. a MOT or MECH (well, compared to most other land units, probably [:)])

All of these factors can be added to get an idea of 1) how much 'value' can be potentially lost and 2) how much 'value'-damage can be inflicted on enemy. These two can then be compared, and depending on aggressiveness, one can go for it if 2) > 1)

Regards
Nikolaj

I meant to reply to your post earlier. Your points are well made and reinforce my uncertainty about how to measure acceptable losses at sea. I am more comfortable doing so on land and in the air, but naval unit types perform several different functions, are expensive to build, and take a long time to build. Added into this are the points you gave: strategic objectives and time. All-in all this does not lend itself to a simple calculation.

[npilgaard]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
I meant to reply to your post earlier.

Well, it is amazing that you even manage to reply [:)] - considering all those posts/replies and and the depth with wich you reply.

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
Your points are well made and reinforce my uncertainty about how to measure acceptable losses at sea. I am more comfortable doing so on land and in the air, but naval unit types perform several different functions, are expensive to build, and take a long time to build. Added into this are the points you gave: strategic objectives and time. All-in all this does not lend itself to a simple calculation.

Some thoughts about losses at sea:
(This is primarily from a US in the Pacific- perspective, but will probably be the case for most other powers as well)

- Building cost (alone) is not always a good indicator on the 'value' of a unit, when determining which losses to accept/what to be lost.
Iirc priority of losses at sea has been discussed somewhat in another thread (or was it this one?), so some of the below may be a repeat, but nevertheless:

'value': general estimates of usefulness (and thus to be avoided to take as loss): VH: very high, HI: high, ME: medium, LO: low, VL:very low (+/- allows for further differentiation)
For all types: if 'plenty' is available: 'value' reduced somewhat

AMPH:
If on the offensive regarding (more than just small) invasions in the upcoming ½-1 year: these must be protected: VH+
If no invasions are coming up, or if having enough of AMPHs: VH
Otherwise as (slightly better) TRSs.

TRS:
if transportation is much needed (US in general, CW (primarily in Europe), Japan, Italy until mid-war): HI-VH (valuable units being transported: VH+ )
If to few TRS available to meet current or expected transport demand: VH/VH+

CV:
If fighting for superiority/expecting such an upcoming fight/building up forces: VH
If very low on CVP (eg playing without CVPiF/pilots): HI/VH
If heavily outgunned at sea and no chance to get upper hand (eg Germany, Italy): LO-ME
(usually no CVs are left in the force pool (at least for US/Japan, maybe CW) - meaning that all available CVs are needed on map in order to gain superiority)

BB:
'New' (fast - matching CV fleet): HI
'Old' (slow): LO

SCS - non BB:
Fast - long range: ME
Slow / short range: LO
Very slow / very short range: VL

Light Cruisers:
In general: VL

A possible exception: when playing with Cruisers/Convoys in flames, and if CW are having a tough time with regards to axis SUBs, then SCS/Cruisers are needed due to their ASW, and the old BBs can take some of the hits instead (although it is important to also have enough of the old BBs to protect the convoy lanes, so the axis SUBs don't just select surface combat instead - especially if CW is using ASW-naval units for protection, with their 0 surface factors)


In general, I would rather not play to risky if my CVs are at stake - especially if the enemy doesn't have his CVs at stake (eg I am fighting LBA/SCS). Losing even a few CVs can mean a lot and significantly alter the superiority-situation, especially in areas with few LBA.
However, if the enemy main CV fleet is a possible target, one may take the chance - high risk - high reward. A matter of playing style, I guess [:)]


CVPs: it is my experience that optionals: pilots and PiF, CVPiF play an important role regarding CVP losses.
If playing with pilots+CVPiF (/PiF): usually there are plenty of CVPs ready to replace those lost, so no big deal. Rather take a CVP than a (not-to-bad) FTR as loss.
If no pilots/no CVPiF: CVP tend to be available in much less quantities (costing 3 BP each and much fewer available), and the 'immidiate replacement-pool' much smaller - losing a few CVP can be a significant disadvantage, especially at early/mid-war, when fighting for superiority.


- when determining losses:
X: apply to cheap cruisers (especially if playing with Cruisers in Flames - the light cruisers are very nice to soak up X-results...), or poor SCSs, or old BBs with a fairly good defence value. Maybe even to newer BBs with good defence value, if needed
Avoid at all cost to apply to CVs because of the long rebuild time (and poor defence, so to risky to take the chance of applying an X and hoping for a D - this often works on BBs but not on CVs...)

D: if sufficient forces are present in sea area to continue fighting, or if planning to abort sea area after combat round anyway: apply to BBs with good defence value - they will probably just abort. (It is especially nice to be able to give one of the heavy Japanese '0'-defense BB a D if one is going to abort from sea area anyway [:)])
Avoid if possible to apply to CVs - but ok if no other suitable targets.

A: apply to TRS/AMPH with cargo / any other naval unit which one would like to get away from the danger of battle (maybe an outgunned CV, CV without CVP, or damaged CV/other valuable ship which should be saved from receiving potential second X/D-result).
If enough forces in sea area: apply to BB (good chance to stay). Else: apply to cruisers etc. with few combat factors, but who increase the '# of ships'-profile (and thus allows the enemy to cause more damage).

In general: if having the time: usually it is much better to have two ships damaged, as they can be rebuilt in only 2 turns and usually rather cheap (even the modern BBs), compared to one ship sunk - it will take 1-2 years to rebuild (if one is even going to bother).
However, if time is running out, if it is very important to keep as many ships on map as possible just now, or if ones gearing/production doesn't allow for naval repair, then better to let one ship take as many results as possible (i.e. an old BB have a good chance to survive an X, and can then soak up a D-result (and maybe even survive still))

[Shannon V. OKeets]

Nikolaj,

Thanks, this is more detail than I had previously worked out concerning naval losses (though a lot of it duplicates stuff I had already done).

These fall under what I think of as the conversion of NCV (naval unit combat values) into CV (land unit combat values), where I use CVs as a 'standard' metric for measuring the value of all units. This conversion is still on my list of things to flesh out in more detail, and in that regard you have helped me considerably.

My other problem though is to measure "threat levels" in a sea are in terms of acceptable losses. To me, that seems to require knowing the current balance of power in the theater of operations (at least), the strategic posture/plan of the major power assessing the threat level, and the importance of time. Each of those 3 elements are weakly defined at the present. They are more vague phrases than specific mechanics for making the calculation of threat level. Before tackling these items directly, I want to do more work on strategic plans, which will give me a better understanding of the last two elements (strategic posture and time/milestones).

[Shannon V. OKeets]

Greyshaft mentioned that garrisoning Paris is crucial for France, which is certainly true. But I like to take specifics and make them generalities. So I was wondering about the importance of garrisoning all capitals, not just for major powers, but for minor countries too. London, Brussels, Berlin, and Teheran come to mind. Conversely, Washington D.C. doesn't seem to warrant a garrison, nor does Chungking most of the time.

So, that leads to me to pose this question:
Under what circumstances can a capital be left ungarrisoned?

I have posed it as a negative, since I believe most of the time it will be best to have a least one unit in a country's capital when it is at war.

Some considerations would be enemy paradrops, invasions, and fast moving ground forces, and the ability of the controlling country to redeploy a unit to the capital later in the turn (on at the start of the next turn) should the situation on the map change.

What I would like to end up with is a standard set of logic that could be used by every major power to determine garrisoning of capital cities.

Now, [and some of you will have seen this coming[:)]], what about similar logic for victory cities and other vital hexes (each stratgeic plan lists these for each major power)? I expect most of the calculations will be identical. As an example from the USSR strategic plan suggestions that Patirce posted, garrisoning Rostov is strongly recommended at the start of Barbarossa.

Comments?

[lomyrin]

Off hand I can think of one case where it is better to not garrison the Capital.
 
If Belgium is attacked by Germany before the Netherlands and before the German Para is available, then it is better to leave Brussels empty and garrison Liege and the rear western hexes only, so that Brussels cannot be attacked in the surprise impulse.
 
Lars

[Froonp]

My immediate reaction to this :

Capitals are only important if their control means conquering (Vichyfying) a country.
Most of the time, for Major Powers, the Capital is not more important than any other factory city.
For some Minor Countries who do not have factories, the Capital is the sole conquering condition, so it is the most mportant hex.
For others, such as Spain for example, the factory cities are far better places to defend (Bilbao & Barcelona), and Madrid can be left an open city, it is not worth fighting for.

In the case of France in 39-40, and Italy in 42-43, the Capital is a lot more important because its possession contribute to satisfy special conquer conditions. But for the CW, Japan or the USA, the capital only have the importance its factories (production capacity) have.

Well, basicaly, I'd say that the top most important hexes in a country, are those hexes that directly allow this country to be conquered : Capital + factory cities.

The second most important hexes in a country are those hexes that indirectly allow this country to be conquered : resources hexes and communication facilities that allow resources to go to factories. In this latter category come those hexes of the frontline, that prevent the enemy from advancing in the country.

The highest important hex of this second category should be less important than the lowest important of the first category (it serves no interest to hold the line against an enemy, and allow it to paradrop on your capital to make you conquered).


For objective cities, I'd say that what is important is who controls what in J/A 45, so for most of the game, you don't care. What's the point of fighting a lot and loosing great forces in 42, to take a victory city that you will loose in 44. Sure you need to have your drive into the enemy steered in part by the Victory cities objectives, but the main point is to try your best to conquer your enemy. Destroy its combat forces, Destroy its production capability, and the Victory cities will be there.

[composer99]

Garrisoning Chungking is always important - you can usually get away with leaving it empty only for a short time.
 
In almost every WiF:FE game I have ever played, the Japanese can usually get 1 or 2 hexes on Chungking.
 
When I played CWif it was usually possible for the Japanese to approach the Sezchuan (pardon my incorrect transliteration/transcription) plateau or whatever geographic feature with supply lines from the railroads from two directions: the north & the south (compared to WiF:FE, where they usually bust their way in through the centre).
 
Once they are trying that move, a garrison will be very important, especially with the lower unit density provided by the larger map.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: composer99

Garrisoning Chungking is always important - you can usually get away with leaving it empty only for a short time.

In almost every WiF:FE game I have ever played, the Japanese can usually get 1 or 2 hexes on Chungking.

When I played CWif it was usually possible for the Japanese to approach the Sezchuan (pardon my incorrect transliteration/transcription) plateau or whatever geographic feature with supply lines from the railroads from two directions: the north & the south (compared to WiF:FE, where they usually bust their way in through the centre).

Once they are trying that move, a garrison will be very important, especially with the lower unit density provided by the larger map.

I agree completely.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

I have been summarizing the strategic plan posts for each major power. Besides all the details, which are very helpful, I want a very high level, broad understanding for each major power the AI Opponent plays. Here is what I have for 3 of the major powers. I will be working on the other 5 whiel I'm in Europe.
============
Strategic Direction for Major Powers
(as of May 13, 2007)

France

I Defend again Germany (including Belgian border) and Italy (since Italy might declare war at any time).
∙ If Italy denudes its border, possibly advance into Italy.
∙ If Germany denudes its border, possibly advance into Germany.

II If Paris falls and Vichy is declared or France is conquered:
∙ Protect Spain/Gibraltar
∙ Once out of contact on land with Axis forces, follow the lead of the CW and USA

III France is not conquered or Paris is not captured because:
∙ Germany is poorly played and its attack fails
∙ Germany goes after Russia first and never gets back to France
∙ Italy is poorly played and France becomes stronger while Germany is supporting Italy

A Direct attack on Germany, possibly through Belgium (and the Netherlands)
B Direct attack on Italy
C Attack to remove all Axis forces from the Med
D Attack through the Balkans, against the Axis aligned minors
E Play a supportive role in CW, USA, and USSR attacks on Germany and Italy

China

I China starts strongly defensive with the Communists holding their home cities in the north and the Nationalists defending Chungking, resources, and factories in the south.

II China responds to Japan’s actions
∙ Looking to exploit openings in the front line to cut off Japanese units from supply
∙ Massing defense against Japanese advances
∙ Maintaining a quasi-continuous line so the Japanese can not slip units through to unguarded rear areas
∙ Putting offensive pressure on Japan if Japan and the USSR are at war
∙ Falling back gradually against continued Japanese attacks, alwyas seeking good defensive terrain

III Maximize production of defensive units by
∙ building cheap land units
∙ asking for lend-lease USSR

I The USSR is not under immediate attack at the start of the Global War scenario. This gives the USSR several options:
∙ DOW Japan
∙ DOW Persia
∙ DOW Bulgaria
∙ DOW Rumania - demand Bessarabia
∙ DOW Finland - demand Finnish borderlands

II The major threat to the USSR is Germany, which may attack in 1940, 1941, 1942, or not at all. But if this attack occurs, regardless of when, Russia will face similar problems:
∙ Defending against Japanese attacks in the east
∙ Defending against Finnish attacks in the north
∙ Defending against German attacks into the Baltic States aimed at Leningrad and Moscow
∙ Defending against German attacks from southern Poland, Rumania, and Hungary towards Kiev and Rostov
∙ Evacuating factories to Central Siberia, Murmansk, and the Caucasus)
∙ Asking for lend lease and keeping a supply line open for receiving it.

III If things go badly, then Russia needs to pull back farther to defend:
∙ the Caucasus
∙ the Urals
∙ Japanese encroachment along the Trans-Siberian rail line

IV If things quiet down and Russia can rebuild, then:
∙ Take back lost territory from Germany (resources and red factories first)
∙ Take back lost territory from Japan
∙ Push into Germany
∙ Push into the Balkans (to capture Rumanian oil)
∙ Push on into Manchuria, Korea, and China