AI for MWiF - USA

A forum for the discussion of the World in Flames AI Opponent.

Moderator: Shannon V. OKeets

Post Reply
User avatar
Froonp
Posts: 7998
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 8:23 pm
Location: Marseilles, France
Contact:

RE: AI for MWiF - USA

Post by Froonp »

Time to bump this up a little, for people to read through and add comments and new ideas.
npilgaard
Posts: 176
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 6:09 pm

RE: AI for MWiF - USA

Post by npilgaard »

A few (rather unremarkable [:)]) thoughts on US overall strategy:

Since US becomes the leading power of the Western Allies, the overall Western Allies strategy (US+CW+FF) depends a lot on US.

Some pretty standard Western Allied main strategies (Axis may be able to force Allies to change strategy - especially if things are going to well for Axis in either Europe or Pacific):

- Europe first, Italy '43
. 1941 If possible: CW fights for control of W Med
. 1942 - 1943 CW/US gains control of W Med and starts reconquest of N Africa. Tripoli conquered
. 1943 Malta conquered. CW/US invasion and conquest of Italy. US lay low in Pacific
. 1944 US against Japan. CW/US invasion in France or Netherlands (or Italy, if unsuccessful in '43)
. 1945 Japan left with only Home Island (and maybe a few other) victory cities. Germany reduced to 'reasonable' size

- Europe first, no '43 Italy, (can e.g. be used to take pressure off USSR)
. 1941 - 1942 Maybe strategic bombing campaign
. 1943 CW/US invasion in W Europe (W or N France, or other suitable area). US lay low in Pacific
. 1944 US against Japan. CW/US thrust forward. Maybe CW/US invasion of Italy
. 1945 Japan left with only Home Island (and maybe a few other) victory cities. Germany reduced to 'reasonable' size. Conquest of Italy

- Japan first
. 1942 US starts poking at Japan perimeter. No preparing for invasion i Europe, but maybe strategic bombing campaign
. 1943 US goes against Japan. CW make minor invasion(s) in Europe
. 1944 US/CW invasion in Italy or France
. 1945 etc.


A somewhat different (and unusual) and rather specific version on 'Japan first':

Requires oil-rules, and a Japan without loads of oil stored. Focus on putting pressure on Japan early using only ac (superior against naval units/ships, as the ac can just 'return to box' if unlucky with surprise points, and are much faster to rebuild than ships)
US pre-war production: building all NAV and med-long range FTR
One variant: pressure on Japanese oil right from the start
CW / US ready to sail a unit (maybe a DIV on SCS, and then do a return-to-base into port with TRS/corps at end of turn) into Makassar (and/or Monado, and/or other ports) in the turn that Japan DoW NEI, to secure it against being conquered.
Right away (even in '41/early '42): Expand a little and place lots of ac in the surrounding area, keep supply via Timor Sea / Australia. FTR+NAV can now go to South China Sea and fight Japanese convoys/navy. Strat bombing may even be attempted against NEI oil fields. If enough ac landing spots can be secured in the area (later on, NAV/FTR may even fly from southern China), and with some initial luck, Japans access to the oil may be hampered (Japan air force is not overwhelming in 1941 if US have built mostly ac until then). More importantly, it forces Japan to fight fleet vs. ac, and Japans focus in its precious time in 1942 until US can match it at sea is at South China Sea rather than at further expansion.
US can then later (when the CVs are ready) move forward through South China Sea/Philippines rather than the Truk-route.
Drawbacks: most early US production goes to ac, in order to have a large enough force to actually attack Japan right after DoW. US attention is in the Pacific at first, so no Europe first strategy - a problem if things are going to well for Germany against USSR.
Key-harbors must be seized quickly (at least one before NEI is conquered), and supply must be maintained, in order to be able to strike into the Japanese oil soft spot South China Sea.
Also, since Japan expands less there are only 3 vital sea areas for him to hold, meaning lots and lots of Japanese ac in those sea areas in the later stages of the war.

I have tried this once, with some success - the Japanese player got quite surprised and I got the upper hand in the air, but unfortunately things were looking bad in Europe, so focus had to be switched before really got the grip on Japan.
Regards
Nikolaj
npilgaard
Posts: 176
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 6:09 pm

RE: AI for MWiF - USA

Post by npilgaard »

More old notes from the list - this time on an early invasion in Italy (66245):


"Early on, the Western Allies should think of themselves as fencers, not swashbuckling pirates armed with cutlasses. Think the point, not the blade. Precision, not strength. You can make one man do the work of 10 (German ones).

You will use your small (albeit chrome) units to launch attacks in areas the Axis have problems marshalling forces in, while your sealift allows you to quickly focus on a new area (or abandon one the Germans mass against). Forex, Norway and Finland are good areas to mess with right as a Barb41 begins (or even before). The German is hogtied into doing lands and cannot react to your advances, but letting your bombers into the Baltic is equally unsavory.

If the EuroAxis does gang up on you in a theater, you've usually saved some poor damn Russian, which is important. Simply repeat to yourself "I am Eduardo Montoya, you killed my father, prepare to die" over and over, AND USE YOUR RAPIER TO MAKE SURE EACH KILLING SWIPE OF THE AXIS CUTLASS IS DEFLECTED SOMEWHERE LESS VITAL!!!

If you continue to do this by 42 (possibly) or 43 (definitely) you will have opened several "annoying fronts" along with a huge reserve force (and huge air force) in the UK or Morocco.

Then BOOM! Land on the Axis with both feet in a strategic front like Italy or France. I've seen every Axis unit in France flipped on the impulse the invasion occured (this is harder to do in 42 but still possible). Overwhelming air power, huge BB cruising offshore and enough Arm and HQ to blitz key hexes, many of which might be OOS.

If you hammer Italy this way, she'll keel over after a bit and die; just remember, here it is FAR BETTER to get ashore early. Often you can wait in France, after all, God's air force is on your side and HQ can stay in the UK and play OC on invasions.

But in Italy, if you wait ONE TURN, the Axis can often forestall your attacks. As the US doing a Italy First, I've been able to paradrop and invade max stacks into Sicily on the 2nd impulse of entering the war, along with an OC. If you do this properly, it can be devastating, but your CW buddy has to really pull his weight, because you bought chrome and ships for the most part.

Last game as Italy, I put all my naval air power in the WMED and based Paras in Algeria for a threat to Gib. It was a bit lame but it worked. I gained a 2 turn respite to stock Sicily and the key hexes of Italy to the gunwales. Then my aircraft went back to guarding the coast and before you knew it, bad weather set in. I kept building grunts and AC, and by invasion weather in 43 I could shrug off all but the most determined Allied assault, and it was going to be very bloody for them (in particular Allied air power in the Italian Coast was limited).

Italy lived throughout the war, it was an armed camp with mech, HQ, AA guns, artillery and all sorts of toys scattered over it. I could not prevent the Allies from invading but I made it so risky that they elected not to and instead funneled their forces elsewhere (France & Turkey). 2 turns is all I needed to live for 15 turns more, and that was 15 turns with Italian AC flying all over the Axis world doing the bidding of their Germanic masters.

As the Axis, if you see a US with several Amph, all Para, Mar and invaders ready by SO41, and CW TRS hanging around the closest Canadian port, be wary. A dead giveaway is an overabundance of Atr, late war you can never have too many, but if you see 3-4 hanging around the MAT area or in the UK, expect an imminent attack when the balloon goes up.

Same thing with an early OC build, but this is more rare.

The only thing I would caution you with is, don't forget your main objective. I've seen Allied player lose focus and get bogged down in a minor theater, continuing to commit too many forces to it (usually this is land units, because AC can just rebase out). Then they find themselves out of position during ideal campaign weather.

On invasion turns, your strat bombers should help out with ground strikes or carpet bombs. I've covered elsewhere your magical ability to include paratroops with each attack [* see below]. If you keep your threat dynamic, the Axis will slowly crack and you'll gain superiority in a major theater. Usually this means your air power begins to dominate obscenely. Once that happens you press remorselessly on the Axis strongholds. Forex, you have the ability to carpet bomb a triple stack AND ground strike it AND slam it from 2 hexsides with a decent attack. This is something the Germans never had at any point, and stopping something like this require 3 good fighters (one for carpet bombing, 1 for paradrops and 1 for ground strikes). Add in night missions and it complicates it for them even further.

But then, at this stage your intent is to overwhelm the defenders anyway.

(...)

> I've become an absolute take out Italy fanatic at this point. It
> has taken plenty of games for me to be so sold on this idea
> however. At WIFCON 2003 Germany did a 41 attack on Russia and as CW
> I built for 41 CW offensive operations.

I would agree with this strategy, I think a 41 assault on Italy is a great idea...IF its in the cards. Depending upon what the Axis builds and how they play, you may find yourself still on the defensive. That's why I prefer a joint US-CW attack on Italy a couple turns later. More options for the allies and harder to stop.

However, to do the bang-up job on Italy I described earlier, the CW must be aggressively defensive in the Med before the operation begins.
You must:
+ hold Malta
+ grab Tunisia
+ occupy Oran, as much of Algeria as possible.
+ garrison Morocco
+ wage incessant war in the Western Med
+ gobble up as many of the Italian surrender objectives as you can, or at least prepare for it.

Depending upon a number of factors (luck, Axis builds, etc.) you may not be able to do all these things. If they are doing a Med build you may be able to do little or none of these things.

If you can do most of them, then a US-CW Italian invasion can proceed immediately, with devastating consequences for the Axis. If you can grab Tunisia, then consider the US OC, because a fast TRS can drop Clark or whoever off there or in Malta for the double invasion attack(s).

Unlike France, an Allied incursion here is hard to kill, you are constrained by the cuttable rail link to Sicily. Plus the Allies can base in good terrain with BB backing them up. If the Italians garrison Sicily, then each one killed hurts their garrison ratio. But the Germans won't want to be there because the bastard Allies might cut them off so they can't rail out when Italy goes down.

Worst of all, unlike France, its a BAD thing to let them grab most of Sicily. If they get enough troops ashore, Italy is kaput. In France you just rail more troops and stabilize the line.

Oh, and don't forget the effect it has on Axis production when half the Italian factories stop working...its as good as 4 good strat bombing hits a turn.

An Allied invasion of Italy can be a disaster for the Axis in 42, and will do more to save Russia than any other option the Western Allies can come up with this early, assuming the EuroAxis are competent."


* Re PARAs (68773):

"One last little item: the Allies have a second ability the Germans can never equal: paradrops. If you've built well, you can have 4 FF ATR on map, enough to ensure that EVERY attack you make will have 2-3 Para in them, ideally. A French ATR is worth 2 Brit or US ATR for mission purposes (not for reorg), yet they (and FF TRS/AMPH) are the most overlooked units in the Western arsenal.

What I am saying here is, 3 FF ATR and George behind your lines can fly 6 paradrops (3 impulses worth if each one has 2 missions). This continual bonus addition to your battles is easy to achieve, and requires the German to have even higher FTR density in his hexes to protect them. Somehow I don't think that's the case. Use them lavishly."
Regards
Nikolaj
User avatar
composer99
Posts: 2931
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 8:00 am
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Contact:

RE: AI for MWiF - USA

Post by composer99 »

All that discussion, of course, presumes that it is the USSR that the Axis is going after. CW can hardly be expected to be launching offensives in the Med in 40-41 when Germany's ramping up for a Sealion (or carrying one out).
 
But then, this is why so much of the Allied early to mid game strategy is just reacting to the Axis strategic direction.
~ Composer99
brian brian
Posts: 3191
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 6:39 pm

RE: AI for MWiF - USA

Post by brian brian »

ORIGINAL: composer99

All that discussion, of course, presumes that it is the USSR that the Axis is going after. CW can hardly be expected to be launching offensives in the Med in 40-41 when Germany's ramping up for a Sealion (or carrying one out).

But then, this is why so much of the Allied early to mid game strategy is just reacting to the Axis strategic direction.

exactly. If the Russians are defending the Ural river line while the US builds 10 Essex class carriers and 6 Missouri class battleships, the Allies will lose the game.
User avatar
composer99
Posts: 2931
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 8:00 am
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Contact:

RE: AI for MWiF - USA

Post by composer99 »

I touched on that in the USSR AIO, but really it is the US and CW AIO who have to, together, come up with a Lend-Lease plan for the USSR (dependent, as always, on what Germany is up to) and make sure they have the pieces in place to execute it.
 
It'll be at the bottom of: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=983900&mpage=5
~ Composer99
User avatar
composer99
Posts: 2931
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 8:00 am
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Contact:

RE: AI for MWiF - USA

Post by composer99 »

Have we had much discussion on the CW-US strategic bombing offensive?
 
If not, we should.
 
The Millennium WiF Annual suggests that bombing should be early & often. My friend Pablo told me of a game he played against Andrew Rader where Andrew's CW/US combo would pound him for 18+ raids per turn in 43-44 (so figure between 9-15 pp lost per turn).
 
Any one else's thoughts on this?
~ Composer99
User avatar
Neilster
Posts: 2989
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2003 1:52 pm
Location: Devonport, Tasmania, Australia

RE: AI for MWiF - USA

Post by Neilster »

ORIGINAL: composer99

Have we had much discussion on the CW-US strategic bombing offensive?

If not, we should.

The Millennium WiF Annual suggests that bombing should be early & often. My friend Pablo told me of a game he played against Andrew Rader where Andrew's CW/US combo would pound him for 18+ raids per turn in 43-44 (so figure between 9-15 pp lost per turn).

Any one else's thoughts on this?
As the Axis, I've found that even the very early strategic bombing that the Commonwealth can mount is quite annoying. I'm not surprised about the above recommendation.

It also ties in nicely with the historical Allied policy of maximizing the use of their industrial and resource potential and their desire to hit back at Germany as early as possible.

Cheers, Neilster
Cheers, Neilster
User avatar
Arron69
Posts: 77
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 10:05 am

RE: AI for MWiF - USA

Post by Arron69 »

ORIGINAL: composer99

Have we had much discussion on the CW-US strategic bombing offensive?

If not, we should.

The Millennium WiF Annual suggests that bombing should be early & often. My friend Pablo told me of a game he played against Andrew Rader where Andrew's CW/US combo would pound him for 18+ raids per turn in 43-44 (so figure between 9-15 pp lost per turn).

Any one else's thoughts on this?

IMO its not so much the lost bb, its the bb germany spends the protect al those factory. Fighters are expensive, and you need 10+ of them to protect germany and france. Lose one and you will have to build to cover its loss. I ALWAYS start building bombers in 40 with the english, and as soon as i can, i choose the entry for US, and start building with them aswell.

Andi.
The winner of a battle may not be the one who wins the War.
brian brian
Posts: 3191
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 6:39 pm

RE: AI for MWiF - USA

Post by brian brian »

the CW has all those tactically crappy LND-3s in the reserve pool, ready to become annoying as soon as the Polish and Belgian pilots straggle in to the UK. But their most annoying bomber by far is the Sunderland. Conversely doing this will get the early Me-109s out on the board too.
User avatar
doctormm
Posts: 67
Joined: Fri May 28, 2004 3:52 am

RE: AI for MWiF - USA

Post by doctormm »

ORIGINAL: composer99

Have we had much discussion on the CW-US strategic bombing offensive?

If not, we should.

The Millennium WiF Annual suggests that bombing should be early & often. My friend Pablo told me of a game he played against Andrew Rader where Andrew's CW/US combo would pound him for 18+ raids per turn in 43-44 (so figure between 9-15 pp lost per turn).

Any one else's thoughts on this?

My (more or less) Rule One as an Allied player is that victory as the Allies is about counter density/attrition. If you allow the Axis to build up huge forces, it doesn't matter that you can build up equally huge forces backed up by a stack of OChits. Germany will be strong everywhere. You'll only be able to grind Germany back a couple of hexes here and there. But if you keep attrition going, when the initiative shifts your way you'll be in a position to hit the weak spots of the Axis.

To me, an early strat bombing campaign is one way to get the attrition going, and it also forces Germany to put some effort into defending the factories, furthering the goal of lowering counter density at the front when the initiative swings.
wosung
Posts: 610
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 8:31 am

RE: AI for MWiF - USA

Post by wosung »

Maybe the US/CW AIO should have different strategies for the strategic air offensive to choose from, maybe on a turn to turn base:

-day or night bombing
-oil or factories
-big wing or many raids
-escorted or not
-targetting the economy or axis fighters
-strategic air minded or open to other tasks (carpet bombing, ground strike, naval search, air transport).

Regards
wosung
haromar
Posts: 19
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 12:00 pm

RE: AI for MWiF - USA

Post by haromar »

When commenting this post I assumed that sooner or later in the development process, the designers will put up their AI strategies, tactics etc to discussion.
 
At that stage, the strategic bombing discussion will be very interesting [:D]
 
Its a never ending issue ... Ask a few wiffers on that subject and you end up with loads of different ideas [;)]
 
While for the JP on China you can simplify the discussion to an extent, for the Wallies it depends so many factors, that I'm curious as to when the AI development process feedback will go under way.
 
On a separate note, few discuss the Ge strat campaign on France in 39. Getting France below the 5 BPs hinders him from building the Mech or/and the HQ for the summer 40.
User avatar
Neilster
Posts: 2989
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2003 1:52 pm
Location: Devonport, Tasmania, Australia

RE: AI for MWiF - USA

Post by Neilster »

ORIGINAL: haromar

When commenting this post I assumed that sooner or later in the development process, the designers will put up their AI strategies, tactics etc to discussion.

At that stage, the strategic bombing discussion will be very interesting [:D]

Its a never ending issue ... Ask a few wiffers on that subject and you end up with loads of different ideas [;)]

While for the JP on China you can simplify the discussion to an extent, for the Wallies it depends so many factors, that I'm curious as to when the AI development process feedback will go under way.

On a separate note, few discuss the Ge strat campaign on France in 39. Getting France below the 5 BPs hinders him from building the Mech or/and the HQ for the summer 40.
There's already been heaps of discussion. Check out pages 2,3 etc for a general AI discussion as well as ones specific to each major power (and partisans).

Cheers, Neilster


Cheers, Neilster
haromar
Posts: 19
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 12:00 pm

RE: AI for MWiF - USA

Post by haromar »

ORIGINAL: Neilster

There's already been heaps of discussion. Check out pages 2,3 etc for a general AI discussion as well as ones specific to each major power (and partisans).

Cheers, Neilster

Oh God[&o] I checked the discussion, also for other MPs, wow.

Unfortunately (or maybe fortunately [:D] ) I've got no experience programming AI, so no clue as to all the comments /ideas are related [&:].

I'll "study" the post a little to find out how the AI strategies or tactics are clustered or ares related to other issues such as optionals or game situation.

E.g. If I play (actually forced top play [:@] ) with the variable reorg optional, my Strategic Bomber campaign will probably look quite different than w/o that optional. At least different enough to warrant a change in AI procedures, however that change looks like.

Question: Are there like executive summaries / clustering / interdependencies flow charts of all these different AI posts?

after looking at all those posts.
Shannon V. OKeets
Posts: 22165
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 11:51 pm
Location: Honolulu, Hawaii
Contact:

RE: AI for MWiF - USA

Post by Shannon V. OKeets »

ORIGINAL: haromar

ORIGINAL: Neilster

There's already been heaps of discussion. Check out pages 2,3 etc for a general AI discussion as well as ones specific to each major power (and partisans).

Cheers, Neilster

Oh God[&o] I checked the discussion, also for other MPs, wow.

Unfortunately (or maybe fortunately [:D] ) I've got no experience programming AI, so no clue as to all the comments /ideas are related [&:].

I'll "study" the post a little to find out how the AI strategies or tactics are clustered or ares related to other issues such as optionals or game situation.

E.g. If I play (actually forced top play [:@] ) with the variable reorg optional, my Strategic Bomber campaign will probably look quite different than w/o that optional. At least different enough to warrant a change in AI procedures, however that change looks like.

Question: Are there like executive summaries / clustering / interdependencies flow charts of all these different AI posts?

after looking at all those posts.
Well, I have summarized and organized them into strategic plans for each major power. They aren't as polished as I will need them for data entry, but they are getting closer.

Pages for each major power:
China - 4 (very thin gruel)
CW - 47
France - 18 (significant portions of my polished version have been posted in the France AIO thread - somewhere towards the end)
Germany - 36
Italy - 29 (same comment as for France)
Japan - 15 (could use more)
USA - 24
USSR - 23
Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.
User avatar
composer99
Posts: 2931
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 8:00 am
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Contact:

RE: AI for MWiF - USA

Post by composer99 »

Any strategic raid into the teeth of fighter cover, if you can manage it, should be as much about shooting down the defending fighter as getting the bombing raid through.
 
Strat bomb raids are good for hitting the Germans (and maybe the Italians) for .75 to 1.5 bp apiece. Shooting down the fighter is good for dinging them for 2-5 bp depending on what plane you shot down was and if you killed the pilot or not.
 
The other thing is that each turn the strat raids should come in two waves. The first to swamp and exhaust fighter cover in the region, the next to really try to pound all factories & oil into the ground.
~ Composer99
User avatar
Froonp
Posts: 7998
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 8:23 pm
Location: Marseilles, France
Contact:

RE: AI for MWiF - USA

Post by Froonp »

ORIGINAL: composer99
The other thing is that each turn the strat raids should come in two waves. The first to swamp and exhaust fighter cover in the region, the next to really try to pound all factories & oil into the ground.
Use HQ to reorg planes for that if possible. Air Action is best too for the first wave.
User avatar
Neilster
Posts: 2989
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2003 1:52 pm
Location: Devonport, Tasmania, Australia

RE: AI for MWiF - USA

Post by Neilster »

"China - 4 (very thin gruel)"

Another famine there eh? Probably caused by one of those Japanese "rice offensives" [:'(]

Cheers, Neilster
Cheers, Neilster
haromar
Posts: 19
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 12:00 pm

RE: AI for MWiF - USA

Post by haromar »

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
Well, I have summarized and organized them into strategic plans for each major power. They aren't as polished as I will need them for data entry, but they are getting closer.

Pages for each major power:
China - 4 (very thin gruel)
CW - 47
France - 18 (significant portions of my polished version have been posted in the France AIO thread - somewhere towards the end)
Germany - 36
Italy - 29 (same comment as for France)
Japan - 15 (could use more)
USA - 24
USSR - 23

The page http://www.eurowif.de/ offers targets, tactics and set ups for all MPs other than GE. Its by an excellent player, it can give you another view on some topics. Unfortunately its in German, but should be easy to translate. I'll try my best.

Whats lacking is later game strategy e.g. depending on the situation.

I'm also not sure how the overall AI will be behave, agressive, cautious, defensive etc. The above targets would change accordingly. This is not dependent on MP or Year, not even on game sitaution. E.g. some CW will try to get 4 corps into an attacked Greece at all circumstances while some want even consider it.

Have to do more reading on these threads to understand the overall AI picture.

Where are those summaries documented?

Thanks.
Post Reply

Return to “AI Opponent Discussion”