AI (general): location v. destruction of enemy

[Froonp]

It's not a bad idea, it's just that it is not that simple, and generaly it is only done for a couple of key units, such as Zhukov for example.

[Zorachus99]

Code: Select all

 III. ATTACK BY STRATAGEM
 
 1. Sun Tzu said: In the practical art of war, the best thing of allis to take the enemy's 
 country whole and intact; to shatter anddestroy it is not so good. So, too, it is better to
  recapture anarmy entire than to destroy it, to capture a regiment, a detachment or a 
 company entire than to destroy them.
 
 2. Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supremeexcellence; supreme 
 excellence consists in breaking the enemy'sresistance without fighting.
 
 3. Thus the highest form of generalship is to balk the enemy'splans; the next best is to 
 prevent the junction of the enemy'sforces; the next in order is to attack the enemy's army
  in thefield; and the worst policy of all is to besiege walledcities.
 
 4. The rule is, not to besiege walled cities if it can possibly beavoided. The preparation
  of mantlets, movable shelters, and variousimplements of war, will take up three whole 
 months; and the pilingup of mounds over against the walls will take three monthsmore.

Applicable in every sense.

The side with the numeric advantage wants to extend the line (# of hexes in the front line) to reduce the weaker side's strength per hex. The stronger side can then concentrate his extra strength against a point (preferably a weak point) in the enemy's line's and break through. This is true of Germany in France in 1940 - Germany invades Belgium to extend the French line - and Germany in Russia in 1941/2. When the balance of power shifts and Germany becomes the weaker side, then the Allies want to extend the front line. I consider this a basic principle of tactical combat and already have it as such for the AIO.

On both counts Steve is spot on with his operational understanding.

However I look at this from a different light regardless of the front.

#1 If I have only operational advantage, I attack to kill units, shorten the line, and/or take fortress cities.

#2 If I have a operational and strategic advantage I take another tack entirely.
A) Attack to lenghten the line, usually to divide the enemy army. Stretching the opponent is supremely useful, as well as a success brings angles to either widen the gap or force the enemy to retreat.
B) Organize a strategic reserve behind the front in the area of the push. I dislike having the entire line reorganize itself simply to push units into the gap. If you can ooze units into a hole, do it, and use the strategic reserve to do so, while continuing to attack.
C) If a breakthrough is acheived I will advance into a city behind the lines even if OOS if air cover is nearly assured. You may lose an armor unit, but the enemy army can be completely disrupted counterattacking as an army as a result of this enemy position destroying sacrifice. 6-10 flipped enemy units is a large meal that will increase your superiority from perhaps 1.5/1 to 3/1 operationally in the area.. Of course try to support any breakthrough, but sometimes the counterattack will hurt (but in a good way). [;)]

Regardless, the basic upshot is that unless you have a reserve of about 6 units in France and 10 units in Russia you won't be able to acheive strategic objectives, only tactical ones. Tactical objectives will win France in time, however it will only serve to make the Russian bear stonger long term.

No all people agree with these ideas, but for me they work pretty well.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

I do not find a reserve of units (i.e., units kept out of the front line) all that important in WIF, primarily because units can exit from a EZOC and redeploy somewhere else along the line. By leapfrogging units left or right it is often possible to build an attacking force anywhere you desire. The process is to thin the line where not attacking and accumulate the excess units at the point of attack.

For other games (e.g., those with locking ZOCs) a reserve is much more vital.

In WIF what usually is much more important in determining the attacking force are those units which have not yet become disorganized. Preserving (keeping organized) units that are good on the attack, such as armor, is crucial to a successful offense. But those units can be in the front line and do not have to be a separate reserve force.

One reserve group that I do try to maintain is a tactical air reserve, but I do not believe that to especially noteworthy, since most players do it.

[Zorachus99]

The reason I mentioned it is, if there is a spectacular breakthrough on the line, and you don't have 10 corps in reserve to exploit it, instead of a potentially strategic opportunity, you are relegated to killing units while you steal from other parts of your army to run toward the hole (often in poor order).  While I ususally don't hold the reserve far off the line, I use this quite often when my unit density it satisfactory on other parts of the line.  Stretching hexes north into the arctic is usually a losing proposition for the Germans.  If your opponent chooses where the line is stretched, he has the initiative for all effective purposes.  Regadless of how I play, your understanding of how the units should be used is excellent unto itself and should make a challenging AIO once it learns to stand up on it's own.  Gotta learn how to walk  [:)]

[hakon]

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99

The reason I mentioned it is, if there is a spectacular breakthrough on the line, and you don't have 10 corps in reserve to exploit it, instead of a potentially strategic opportunity, you are relegated to killing units while you steal from other parts of your army to run toward the hole (often in poor order).  While I ususally don't hold the reserve far off the line, I use this quite often when my unit density it satisfactory on other parts of the line.  Stretching hexes north into the arctic is usually a losing proposition for the Germans.  If your opponent chooses where the line is stretched, he has the initiative for all effective purposes.  Regadless of how I play, your understanding of how the units should be used is excellent unto itself and should make a challenging AIO once it learns to stand up on it's own.  Gotta learn how to walk  [:)]

A 10 corps reserve is a lot in 1941, and not much at all in 1944. As the was drags on, crucial areas tend to become double-lined (2 rows of units) in most places, in my experience. Due to a very short front, france can also afford such luxery in 1940 along the initial line, even if it usually doesnt help that much.

If you talk about 1941 barbarossa, I have trouble seeing how keeping 10 units in reserve benefits german (the attacker). What it does, is to allow the USSR to shorten the line, which means that she can have 2 rows of units in the critical spots, preventing breakthroughs. A 1942 barbarossa would be very different of course.

In a 1941 barbarossa, my experience with Germany is that numeical superiority is crucial. I would usually much rather have 5 more inf of 6 factors each than 3 more mech of 8 factors each. I also alway build all my militia prior to m/j 40, making the bad ones do garrison duty, and bringing the better ones to the front. If I dont have this numerical superiority, I find that I cant always move my units into enemy zoc, where a zoc defense is presented, as it overstretches my line. (My ambition is to press easy on a line from the Black sea to Moscow, often leaving Leningrad pocketed for a while).

By streatching the russians this far, lots of attack opportunities are usually created, in my experience. And as long as I kill far more units than she produces, this has an escellating effect, which means that I can go on attacking all the time through winter and into the summer of 1942.

[YohanTM2]

ORIGINAL: CBoehm


To some extend ...I feel completely OPPOSITE (atleast in the short term tactics) ...For the allies IMO the most effective strategy is to constantly open and expand fronts to tie up more and more Ge units rather than to try to break an existing front

I must agree with you sir. When I won the Canadian WiF championship a decade ago in Calgary it was actually my CW partner who caused the win. He invaded France in 1942 with no hope of success. BUT, it tied up enough GE units that I was able to drive a breakthrough in 42 as Russia and destry his lines by J/A.

[composer99]

We are currently engaged in something to that effect in our WiF game: we have invaded France earlier than normal (summer '43), and while we can probably effect a breakthrough somewhere, it will take some time and playing around. But in the meantime, the line facing the USSR in Poland (the German didn't do Barb) and Prussia is quite thin. So thin, in fact, that the Red Army is going through East Prussia to flank it, production multiple bonus notwithstanding.

[BlackStarWizard]

As tree pointed out - it's all about the economy.

There are many situations when targeting units is extremely important. For example:

1. When you are able to strike at units the enemy needs to execute his strategic plans.
- Examples are AMPHs, Paras, Transports, Blitzkrieg units if few are at hand etc. What you are doing here is delaying your enemy's operations.

2. When you see that your opponent has left powerful and expensive units in a vulnerable position.
- Examples of this are carriers in port within reach of your bombers, concentrations of unescorted convoys, ARM stacks exposed to carpet bombing etc. In this case what you are really destroying is the resources your enemy will have to spend in rebuilding those units - you are weakening his economy.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Pazuzu

As tree pointed out - it's all about the economy.

There are many situations when targeting units is extremely important. For example:

1. When you are able to strike at units the enemy needs to execute his strategic plans.
- Examples are AMPHs, Paras, Transports, Blitzkrieg units if few are at hand etc. What you are doing here is delaying your enemy's operations.

2. When you see that your opponent has left powerful and expensive units in a vulnerable position.
- Examples of this are carriers in port within reach of your bombers, concentrations of unescorted convoys, ARM stacks exposed to carpet bombing etc. In this case what you are really destroying is the resources your enemy will have to spend in rebuilding those units - you are weakening his economy.
Welcome to the forum.

[composer99]

I wouldn't say that it's all about economies, any more than it's all about killing enemy forces or about positioning.
 
What it's all about is capturing objective hexes. You play the positioning game to stretch the enemy lines, you launch attacks to destroy enemy units, and you engage in strategic submarine or air warfare to degrade their economies, all with the purpose of seizing the objectives that they hold or to protect your own.

[Neilster]

I always felt capturing as many Russian cities as quickly as possible was vital.

Cheers, Neilster

[haromar]

Since this is the "general" AI section, here some general stuff that should apply to all nations.
 
Is this the correct thread?
 
Some of this stuff is obvious (not all though [:'(]), but it also has to be documented, correct?
 
- In case the hex can be reasonably attacked, stack a third inexpensive unit to take as loss. E.g. If out in the open with an arm or mech, put a cav div on top to take as first loss. Not true if the hex is critical, in that case put another AA or AT on top. Also not true if no 3rd unit available.
 
- When attacking in blitz 2D10, take a Mot Div or Mech Div as potential loss.
 
- Place units so as to Zoc out all potential invasion hexes (applies to Egypt, Palestina, Italy etc.).
 
- Single Strategic Bomb hexes w/o enemy FTR cover. First in normal range, then double range. Then hexes with enemy FTR cover in single range with own FTR escort, then double range w/o own FTR but no worse than -1/+1. Follow this tactic until you can mass enough bombers (applies to allies only) that you are actually trying to destroy Factories.
 
- In Air to Air, place best AtA rated FTR in front. In case LBA and CVP are same value, CVP in front. The exceptions:
a. You must fight or want to fight more than one round of combat, i.e. do not want to abort, and you expect your opponent to do the same. You might place the 2nd best rated FTR in front so as to gain depth after the first AA or AX is rolled. This is especially true if it allows you to then place a CVP as best front FTR.
b. Your best rated FTR is orange circled. e.g. CW 1940 with 5-8 3 turn FTR. In that case, you might opt to put the 3 CVP in front giving 4 straight instead of 5.3 weakened.
c. You're only LBA or your opponent cannot do much damage with his naval bombers. You are fighting at negative AtA due to surpirse points or not having all sections included. You do not have naval bombers to absorb losses. You plan on aborting the AtA combat and search again or abort the sea zone. You have no good FTR arriving in this area for the next turn but must fight in the area. You expect your opponent to pull out FTR out of this area. Hide the best FTR.
 
- In large Air to Air, always take the AA or AX on the FTR. Exception, the combat is almost over, then abort the last or almost last enemy naval bomber
 
Is this the correct thread for stuff like this?
To be continued ...

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: haromar

Since this is the "general" AI section, here some general stuff that should apply to all nations.

Is this the correct thread?

Some of this stuff is obvious (not all though [:'(]), but it also has to be documented, correct?

- In case the hex can be reasonably attacked, stack a third inexpensive unit to take as loss. E.g. If out in the open with an arm or mech, put a cav div on top to take as first loss. Not true if the hex is critical, in that case put another AA or AT on top. Also not true if no 3rd unit available.

- When attacking in blitz 2D10, take a Mot Div or Mech Div as potential loss.

- Place units so as to Zoc out all potential invasion hexes (applies to Egypt, Palestina, Italy etc.).

- Single Strategic Bomb hexes w/o enemy FTR cover. First in normal range, then double range. Then hexes with enemy FTR cover in single range with own FTR escort, then double range w/o own FTR but no worse than -1/+1. Follow this tactic until you can mass enough bombers (applies to allies only) that you are actually trying to destroy Factories.

- In Air to Air, place best AtA rated FTR in front. In case LBA and CVP are same value, CVP in front. The exceptions:
a. You must fight or want to fight more than one round of combat, i.e. do not want to abort, and you expect your opponent to do the same. You might place the 2nd best rated FTR in front so as to gain depth after the first AA or AX is rolled. This is especially true if it allows you to then place a CVP as best front FTR.
b. Your best rated FTR is orange circled. e.g. CW 1940 with 5-8 3 turn FTR. In that case, you might opt to put the 3 CVP in front giving 4 straight instead of 5.3 weakened.
c. You're only LBA or your opponent cannot do much damage with his naval bombers. You are fighting at negative AtA due to surpirse points or not having all sections included. You do not have naval bombers to absorb losses. You plan on aborting the AtA combat and search again or abort the sea zone. You have no good FTR arriving in this area for the next turn but must fight in the area. You expect your opponent to pull out FTR out of this area. Hide the best FTR.

- In large Air to Air, always take the AA or AX on the FTR. Exception, the combat is almost over, then abort the last or almost last enemy naval bomber

Is this the correct thread for stuff like this?
To be continued ...

Yes. Very useful and thank you. I have a general AIO document (86 pages) for things that are not specific to one major power.

[composer99]

Vis-a-vis strat bombing, once you have enough fighters, you should target those regions that have fighter cover first to deprive them of same (either by shooting down or using up the fighters). This helps establish and increase air superiority.

[DarthCycle]

An interesting topic, I loved thread on AI.

For me, a good AI must have at least 3 components: a plan, a strategy that defines the steps that are required in order to realize the plan and tactics that execute each step of a strategy.

A human player thinks of all these elements at the same time (sometimes, without realizing it) when playing a game.

Within the context of a game like WIF, this could translate into (let's imagine we're emulating an Axis player playing Germany):
1-Overall plan: winning the war (ok simple enough statement)
2-Plan: Invade Poland, Invade Low-Countries, Invade France, Defend from England, Invade Soviet Union.
3-Strategy: (one example only) Invade Poland: declare war, invade through western border, capture city A-B-C ...
4-Tactics for capture of city A: identify weakest defending stack within 2 hex of objective (city A), concentrate land force within range in order to get 2:1 ratio, ...

An AI that only deals with tactics but no plan will not achieve anything. An AI with a plan but poor tactics will also not achieve anything.

This is especially important in a game like WIF. Without a plan (a vision), the AI will only focus on short term gains: conquering territories, winning battles, limit its losses. Individually, these actions are all important but they only become meaningfull when they are part of a plan, implying that each action are complementary.

IMO, this is where most AI fail. There is no cohesion to AI action from turn to turn. AI also become extremely predictable.

From a game design perspective, if you can modelize an AI that has these 3 levels of decision (plan/strategy/tactic), you can modelize separate behavior in unique objects and these objects are reusable from one plan/strategy to another.

Another advantage of this design model: you can mimick behavior from top players. Find a good USA player. Get him to explain his plan, each strategy step and each tactic (relevant to USA action). You now have a good USA AI. Another twist is to have 3 (or more) unique USA plan, and make the AI choose one randomly at the beginning of each game. You now have a USA AI that will play very differently from game to game (you don't know which plan is in effect). Combine this for each major power and the various AI combinations makes for very different gameplay behavior for each game. When a new strategy or tactic is available (based on players feedback or modders), you can incorporate it into the relevant AI plan.

Food for thoughts.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: DarthCycle

An interesting topic, I loved thread on AI.

For me, a good AI must have at least 3 components: a plan, a strategy that defines the steps that are required in order to realize the plan and tactics that execute each step of a strategy.

A human player thinks of all these elements at the same time (sometimes, without realizing it) when playing a game.

Within the context of a game like WIF, this could translate into (let's imagine we're emulating an Axis player playing Germany):
1-Overall plan: winning the war (ok simple enough statement)
2-Plan: Invade Poland, Invade Low-Countries, Invade France, Defend from England, Invade Soviet Union.
3-Strategy: (one example only) Invade Poland: declare war, invade through western border, capture city A-B-C ...
4-Tactics for capture of city A: identify weakest defending stack within 2 hex of objective (city A), concentrate land force within range in order to get 2:1 ratio, ...

An AI that only deals with tactics but no plan will not achieve anything. An AI with a plan but poor tactics will also not achieve anything.

This is especially important in a game like WIF. Without a plan (a vision), the AI will only focus on short term gains: conquering territories, winning battles, limit its losses. Individually, these actions are all important but they only become meaningfull when they are part of a plan, implying that each action are complementary.

IMO, this is where most AI fail. There is no cohesion to AI action from turn to turn. AI also become extremely predictable.

From a game design perspective, if you can modelize an AI that has these 3 levels of decision (plan/strategy/tactic), you can modelize separate behavior in unique objects and these objects are reusable from one plan/strategy to another.

Another advantage of this design model: you can mimick behavior from top players. Find a good USA player. Get him to explain his plan, each strategy step and each tactic (relevant to USA action). You now have a good USA AI. Another twist is to have 3 (or more) unique USA plan, and make the AI choose one randomly at the beginning of each game. You now have a USA AI that will play very differently from game to game (you don't know which plan is in effect). Combine this for each major power and the various AI combinations makes for very different gameplay behavior for each game. When a new strategy or tactic is available (based on players feedback or modders), you can incorporate it into the relevant AI plan.

Food for thoughts.

Welcome to the forum.

In case you didn't notice, there are at least 8 other threads on the AI Opponent: one for each major power. At the top of this forum there is a thread which will give you the links to each of the AIO strategic plan threads.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

Here is a problem I am working on fleshing out the answer to. What I want to achieve is a written description of the process for determining which CRT to use. I have made a small start on this and I am interested in your opinions as to how you make this decision. Most of this writeup is for when attacking. What needs to be different if you are defending?

The 3 Re is the level of difficulty I assigned to writing this rule (3: where 1 - easy and 5 - very hard). Re denotes that the the AIO has to Respond when asked this question.

===========
8.33 Resolve land combat - choose table (see RAC 11.16) (3 Re)
Calculate the expected results for both tables (Assault and Blitz). Results are pessimistic, expected, and optimistic results. The extremes occur 10% or less of the time. These 10% and 90% thresholds can be modified whenever appropriate (e.g., to 20% and 60%).

When attacking, possible goals are:
(1) to empty a hex so we can occupy it,
(2) to achieve a breakthrough,
(3) to kill enemy units,
(4) to preserve our own units,
(5) to disorganize enemy units, or
(6) to not disorganize our own units.

If the mode of attack (see below) is to push the enemy back, then the choice is between 1 and 2. If the mode of attack is to kill enemy units, then the choice is between 3 and 4. If the mode of attack is to disorganize the enemy, then the choice is between 5 and 6.

When defending, ...


======================
Tactical mode
What the Field Marshal (FM) needs to determine is which of 4 modes of attack to use:
(1) Destroy enemy units this impulse,
(2) Disorganize 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.

Maneuvering can change supply status for friendly and enemy units, increase the number of hexes from which to attack an enemy hex, and improve the selection of hexes from which to attack. In situations where the enemy has the ability to counterattack, maneuvering can improve the FM’s resulting defensive line at the end of his impulse.

The calculation of estimated results provides the expected changes (for both sides) to the front line. This includes kills and disorganizations. In addition to combat results, units can also become disorganized because they were committed during the impulse (e.g., air units). And disorganized units might be reorganized. When the impulse is over, the FM makes a new assessment, ‘B’, for each front line., and compares it to ‘A’.

By extrapolating the change from A to B over the remaining impulses in the turn, the FM judges whether disorganization is a viable tactic for the current turn. It works if the enemy units are mostly disorganized with no reorganization capability left while the FM still has a viable, organized, attacking force.

Direct attacks to kill enemy units is usually the best tactic but it might cause too many friendly casualties or disorganizations. Or, if the FM limits attacks to only those with excellent odds, it might be too slow. Yet again, maneuvering is rarely fast and there might not be enough impulses in the turn to use the disorganization tactic. The FM must be willing to accept that none of the modes will work as well as he would like and simply go with half measures, or no attacks at all.

[composer99]

I would not make disorganizing enemy units one of the goals of a land combat - after all, ideally you are attacking hexes where the units have already mostly been disorganized by your ground strikes.
 
Also, there is what, exactly one result where the enemy can be disorganized after an attack without also being retreated or shattered, right?

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: composer99

I would not make disorganizing enemy units one of the goals of a land combat - after all, ideally you are attacking hexes where the units have already mostly been disorganized by your ground strikes.

Also, there is what, exactly one result where the enemy can be disorganized after an attack without also being retreated or shattered, right?

Hmm,

But if your goal is to disorganize enemy units then retreats and shattered accomplish that goal.

The 4 goals I listed are from a broader perspective than a single combat. If after 4 attacks in an impulse you have disorganized almost all the enemy units then you are in good shape for the next impulse. And retreats and shattereds achieve that purpose. In the following impulse you might be trying to destroy enemy units.

I think those goals should influence your choice of assault versus blitz.

[fvianello]

ORIGINAL: Klingon

The goal of military operations is to bring a rapid and successful conclusion to the war, not to destroy the enemy's forces; Sun Tzu understood this very well.

I don't think that von clausewitz would agree.
Destruction of the enemy forces is the only real goal in a war; it can be obtained in several ways, among them maneuver, but maneuver is only a way to obtain an advantage allowing to inflict maximum damage on the enemy forces while taking relatively less.

Thinking about "position" and "maneuver" as a self-sufficient way to obtain victory in war would put anyone in the same position of those pompous hereditary princes trying to "win by maneuver" against Frederick the Great or Napoleon.

Please be sure to understand Clausewitz (and me too) never said that maneuver is useless before answering with examples of successful maneuvers taken from Aztec - Alaskan wars of the VI century.