AI for MWiF - USSR

[hakon]

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

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

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: SewerStarFish

ORIGINAL: hakon

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Froonp]

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

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

[npilgaard]

ORIGINAL: hakon

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

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

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

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

Agree - building ahead has to be banned as well.

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

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

[hakon]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

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

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

Hakon

[brian brian]

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

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

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

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

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: brian brian

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[brian brian]

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

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

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

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

[IKerensky]

England won Battle of Britain because the :
  1- The Germans were unable to keep to a coordinated strategy and adjust to terror bombing in the middle of the campaign.
  2- The Germans weren't really able to mount a sea invasion.
  3- The 109 short range is a point as the RAF could jsut have withdrawn all his asset N of london and kept the Axis bobm at will uninteresting part of the southern landscape.
  4- The LW wasn't suited for strategical warfare.
  5- The radar and all the coordinated defense net ( even Mk I  Eyeball observer did their part ).
 
The Germans could have won a tactical victory and force the RAF to abandon Southern England if they have keep their Airfield Suppression strategy. This would have accounted for nothing as the RAF and RN could still have sunk any attemps for the german to cross the channel on their 3 mph, 2 feet above water high, towed barges... and dont laugh that was what they planned to use. Their training landing drown 30 men and took 8 hours just to land a batallion sized unit... And dont forget that the first supply run would have occured 3 weeks after the initial landings, that there will be nothing heavier than ATR and no artilery on the initial landing, and that the guys were supposed to land take off their life jacket, stack them on the beach and have them returned by boat for the next wave...

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: c92nichj

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Taxman66]

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

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: Taxman66

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

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

[Taxman66]

Yes, of course hence the "if it took long enough" disclaimer.

[npilgaard]

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

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

[Zorachus99]

ORIGINAL: npilgaard

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

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

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

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

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

[composer99]

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

[hakon]

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

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

Cheers
Hakon

[hakon]

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

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

Cheers
Hakon

ORIGINAL: composer99

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

[cockney]

having a think about what the USSR ai should do.

1 historical attack eastern Poland and the balticks.

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

3 demand Moldova

4 attack Bulgaria

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

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

[peskpesk]

Denmark gambit, is it worth it?

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

5.1 Trade agreements
…

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

Extra BP or oil to Germany for Denmark

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

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

Germany can break the pact at his choice

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

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

What do you think?