AI for MWiF - China

[wosung]

From my very limited experience with CWIF, I think these are good observations.

Esp. the defence against partisans, it seems to me, can be a major undertaking for Japan, guarding resources, lines of communication, cities, harbors and air units.

Can partisans only move in enemy controlled hexes? If yes, this probably would mean, Japan is better off to leave the Chinese partisan controlled coastal area (Chekiang/Kwanghsi provinces) behind the frontline as it is, to avoid partisans there?!

Can partisans change the affiliation of Warlords? Even if not, regular Chinese/Chicom play could take into account the possibility of "harvest" additional land units by occupation of warlord cities (Peking, Shanghai).

Late war play of both Chinese and Jap perhaps should take into account potential US operations along the Chinese coast line?!

I also think, Jap and Chinese strategic planning on mainland China should take into account enemy strategy:

Chinese Offensivenss/Defensiveness could depend on Japan's built priorities (land /naval units) and Japan's posture on mainland Asia.

Perhaps Japanese grand planning (continental/maritime strategy) partly should consider Chinese setup ( forward, exposed, quickly beatable y/n), aside of German strategy (Med/Barb).

Regards

[sajbalk]

>>Can partisans only move in enemy controlled hexes? If yes, this probably would mean, Japan is better off to leave the Chinese partisan controlled coastal area (Chekiang/Kwanghsi provinces) behind the frontline as it is, to avoid partisans there?!

Yes, partisans can move in enemy-controlled hexes. In WiFFE, leaving the amount of controlled land in China to a minimum is a good way of limiting partisans.

>>Can partisans change the affiliation of Warlords? Even if not, regular Chinese/Chicom play could take into account the possibility of "harvest" additional land units by occupation of warlord cities (Peking, Shanghai).


No, partisans do not change control of a hex, they simply take away the control from the owner. So, Warlords will not vanish. Partisans will be a much bigger problem in MWiF because Japan would need to use many more land units to ZOC its rear.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: WarHunter
For China or Japan to be victorious there are a few guildlines that i keep in my mind, while setting up and playing.

Is this taken from CWiF play, or from WiF FE play experience ?

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: wosung
Can partisans only move in enemy controlled hexes? If yes, this probably would mean, Japan is better off to leave the Chinese partisan controlled coastal area (Chekiang/Kwanghsi provinces) behind the frontline as it is, to avoid partisans there?!

They can move in enemy controlled hexes, and in friendly controlled hexes. They have no limitation to enemy controlled hexes.

Can partisans change the affiliation of Warlords? Even if not, regular Chinese/Chicom play could take into account the possibility of "harvest" additional land units by occupation of warlord cities (Peking, Shanghai).

No they can't.

[WarHunter]

Is this taken from CWiF play, or from WiF FE play experience ?

Its from Playing both CWif and Wif FE. Started playing back at the 2nd edition. Still have CWif on my Computer.

[brian brian]

I like how the new map will make the theater more of a classical strategy struggle, kind of like, hmmm, an ancient Chinese strategy game perhaps?

[Subetai]

There is an important possibility for the China - Japan theatre that MWIF allows for more than the boardgame, and that is mutual peace between China and Japan (this might have been discussed elsewhere but can't find it).  Why this might occur is addressed below.

CC and NC will have one AIO (which I agree with), but in a board game the CC are played by the RU (and the NC usually by the US). This means that if (for whatever reason) the JP player offers a peace, it rarely happens, because its not in the RU or US interest for a peace. The point of this post is to suggest that if the JP players offers a peace (lets say back to 1936 borders - so just Manchuria and none of Occupied China), that the Chinese AIO (CC and NC) would most times agree. (Happy to have historial discussion off line).

The CC and NC would then try to occupy the vacated cities, and importantly Shanghai (Victory City). This is then consistent with the AIO trying to do the best for ITSELF (and not be abused by the RU or US player)!

Why would JP offer this? Cost benefit analysis! The cost to conquer, or at least capture more resources in China, is high. As is the effort to garrison China. The JP player could well assess that, in say early 1942 (to use historial timelines) that the new resources captured (importantly oil - none in China) in the south are enough to maintain the war effort (bearing in mind a reduced land unit requirement).

THis is not a gamey strategy, but entirely plausable and within the rules of the game.

[IKerensky_alt]

Hum, so basically the Japan accept to surrender large area and ressource in order not to spent more...
 
Except that he already spend a lot to get them when you start the game in 1936 with Day of Decision.
 
Why would the Chinese AIO see it as a benefice to accept Japanese peace offer ? he is part of the Allied team and his job is to keep Japan occupied as much as he can.
 
I am not sure either that Japan would really really appreciate to have US fleet airplanes and troups based in China where he wont be able to attack them. China could DOW Italy to stay active, receiving support and LL from US to build up air and naval(sub) power. It would require Japanese garrison to protect Manchuria and Hainan/Formosa ( if he keep one of them ). Any effort of the Japanese toward India would be made far more difficult to sustain if troups have to start from Japan and Neutral Chinese can help garrison CW possession before the US can take the entry, making any landing harder.
 
China could also DOW Vichy and take French Indo-China perhaps even before Japan could make his claim, but I need to check the map and chinese counter to be sure.
 
All in All, accepting a peace treaty doesnt sound like the best thing to propose for Japan, but perhaps not as bad to accept for China. But I think the AiO will never ever consider it.

[Caquineur]

ORIGINAL: Greywolf
... China could DOW Italy
...
China could also DOW Vichy ...

If I'm not mistaken, China can't declare war

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: Greywolf

Hum, so basically the Japan accept to surrender large area and ressource in order not to spent more...

Except that he already spend a lot to get them when you start the game in 1936 with Day of Decision.

Why would the Chinese AIO see it as a benefice to accept Japanese peace offer ? he is part of the Allied team and his job is to keep Japan occupied as much as he can.

I am not sure either that Japan would really really appreciate to have US fleet airplanes and troups based in China where he wont be able to attack them. China could DOW Italy to stay active, receiving support and LL from US to build up air and naval(sub) power. It would require Japanese garrison to protect Manchuria and Hainan/Formosa ( if he keep one of them ). Any effort of the Japanese toward India would be made far more difficult to sustain if troups have to start from Japan and Neutral Chinese can help garrison CW possession before the US can take the entry, making any landing harder.

China could also DOW Vichy and take French Indo-China perhaps even before Japan could make his claim, but I need to check the map and chinese counter to be sure.

All in All, accepting a peace treaty doesnt sound like the best thing to propose for Japan, but perhaps not as bad to accept for China. But I think the AiO will never ever consider it.

If China becomes neutral it stays neutral until the Axis players so decide. China as a neutral major power do not co-operate with USA.

Cut from RAW:
9.1 Neutral major powers
A neutral major power can’t co-operate with any other major power
9.2 How to declare war
China may not declare war.

[IKerensky_alt]

Ok, so absolutely no reason for a Chinese player or AI to accept a Japanese Peace Proposal... except to serve as Peacekeeper in Asia or unsunkable carrier for US planes in 1941... Except I am pretty sure they are not allowed to flight mission against Japan from neutral China...
 
Who want to seat on the bench all match ?

[Subetai]

The reason the Chinese AIO accepts this is because it may be the best way for it to achieve ITS victory conditions, not those of RU or US. Now obviously a person playing China would not accept or, as you say, they'll sit on the bench all match.

Why MIGHT JP offer this? To permanently secure that flank. NO attacks, by CC, NC or anyone else from that area, thereby allowing JP to deploy forces elsewhere. Yes, less production, but also less outlay. This may be a better way for JP to achieve its victory conditions.

Remember this is not a compulsory peace a la Option 50.

As Steve has said, he is programing each individual AIO to look after itself first (I think I have quoted you correctly?)

[IKerensky_alt]

Ok, but remember that each AiO want to win the game, and accepting a peace proposal by Japan only mean a win if China could DoW it later on.
 
In fact I wonder what peace proposal the AI should consider at all, except compulsary ones and perhaps a Japan-Russian non-aggression pact there is no real reason to accept any peace proposal in the game.
 
With your idea, France and Germany could just come to peace in 1939, each one gaining advantage of it. France will take Italy VPs and Germany will have a free reign on the East...
 
BTW I didn't read China will have bids for it-self in MWiF, if that is so the victory condition for US and USSR should be revised.
WWII was Total War, and so should be WiF...

[Gurggulk]

Subetai, Nice posts on thinking outside the box. Many a time our group disscussed possible ideas for many nations, large and small. Some workable, some not.
 
The Nippon nation can be forced off the Chinese mainland, for that reason alone, an olive branch to the China Allies, seems like a great idea for the axis, not so for the allies. But looks are decieving.
 
Considering the Allies advantage to taking this peace treaty, there are a couple.
 
1. Chunking will never fall. Axis can never get a Sudden Death Auto Victory over the allies.
2. USSR will never have to consider the CC for moves during a Combined impluse, when at peace.
3. Burma Oil will never have to be sent to China.
 
These may not seem like a lot, but it adds up.
 
Nippon is forced to deploy without the benefit of any China ports, airfields and Flanking position over SE Asia. This is not to be taken lightly.
 
I would probaly rate this possible AI response to about 2%. As this is a wargame, a peace treaty will probably not be accepted by China.

[brian brian]

I'm pretty sure the AI will only play in 2-player mode, and then things like a separate peace are rather irrelevant.

This sometimes happens by default between Japan and China for several years when Japan pursues other strategic directions and China is unable to gain much traction against them until their build-up really gets big.

I like the newest twist on the Chinese Attack Weakness optional rule, but that is not a part of MWiF.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Subetai

There is an important possibility for the China - Japan theatre that MWIF allows for more than the boardgame, and that is mutual peace between China and Japan (this might have been discussed elsewhere but can't find it).  Why this might occur is addressed below.

CC and NC will have one AIO (which I agree with), but in a board game the CC are played by the RU (and the NC usually by the US). This means that if (for whatever reason) the JP player offers a peace, it rarely happens, because its not in the RU or US interest for a peace. The point of this post is to suggest that if the JP players offers a peace (lets say back to 1936 borders - so just Manchuria and none of Occupied China), that the Chinese AIO (CC and NC) would most times agree. (Happy to have historial discussion off line).

The CC and NC would then try to occupy the vacated cities, and importantly Shanghai (Victory City). This is then consistent with the AIO trying to do the best for ITSELF (and not be abused by the RU or US player)!

Why would JP offer this? Cost benefit analysis! The cost to conquer, or at least capture more resources in China, is high. As is the effort to garrison China. The JP player could well assess that, in say early 1942 (to use historial timelines) that the new resources captured (importantly oil - none in China) in the south are enough to maintain the war effort (bearing in mind a reduced land unit requirement).

THis is not a gamey strategy, but entirely plausable and within the rules of the game.

I see a big drawback for Japan that should not be ignored, this is that suddenly Japan becomes neutral, which means :
- Forced to choose combined actions until at war with another major power. No more naval nor land actions.
- Forced to put back all MIL and reserve units in the force pool, which represent a good amount of lost BP.

Both of which for me are reasons why I would never ask that as the Japanese.

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

I see a big drawback for Japan that should not be ignored, this is that suddenly Japan becomes neutral, which means :
- Forced to choose combined actions until at war with another major power. No more naval nor land actions.
- Forced to put back all MIL and reserve units in the force pool, which represent a good amount of lost BP.

Both of which for me are reasons why I would never ask that as the Japanese.

I seem to recall a rule change that says that on map militia (and reserve?) units, when a major power becomes neutral, are moved to the reserve pool and treated as reserve units the next time the major power goes to war.

I am to tired to go looking for the rule now. But I am pretty sure one of you can tell me if I am mistaken or not.

[michaelbaldur]

ORIGINAL: Orm

ORIGINAL: Froonp

I see a big drawback for Japan that should not be ignored, this is that suddenly Japan becomes neutral, which means :
- Forced to choose combined actions until at war with another major power. No more naval nor land actions.
- Forced to put back all MIL and reserve units in the force pool, which represent a good amount of lost BP.

Both of which for me are reasons why I would never ask that as the Japanese.

I seem to recall a rule change that says that on map militia (and reserve?) units, when a major power becomes neutral, are moved to the reserve pool and treated as reserve units the next time the major power goes to war.

I am to tired to go looking for the rule now. But I am pretty sure one of you can tell me if I am mistaken or not.

only reserve militz

If you are now a neutral major power, remove any MIL units you have on the map or on the production circle that have ‘Res’ on their back and place them in the reserve pool. Remove all your remaining MIL units from the game until you are next at war (see 4.1.2).

[christo]

ORIGINAL: michaelbaldur

ORIGINAL: Orm

ORIGINAL: Froonp

I see a big drawback for Japan that should not be ignored, this is that suddenly Japan becomes neutral, which means :
- Forced to choose combined actions until at war with another major power. No more naval nor land actions.
- Forced to put back all MIL and reserve units in the force pool, which represent a good amount of lost BP.

Both of which for me are reasons why I would never ask that as the Japanese.

I seem to recall a rule change that says that on map militia (and reserve?) units, when a major power becomes neutral, are moved to the reserve pool and treated as reserve units the next time the major power goes to war.

I am to tired to go looking for the rule now. But I am pretty sure one of you can tell me if I am mistaken or not.

only reserve militz

If you are now a neutral major power, remove any MIL units you have on the map or on the production circle that have ‘Res’ on their back and place them in the reserve pool. Remove all your remaining MIL units from the game until you are next at war (see 4.1.2).

I'm with Orm. Was it in the rules that came with the 2008 Annual that put any newly built (ie non reserve) on the reserve list in the event of peace?

Christo

[micheljq]

ORIGINAL: Subetai

There is an important possibility for the China - Japan theatre that MWIF allows for more than the boardgame, and that is mutual peace between China and Japan (this might have been discussed elsewhere but can't find it).  Why this might occur is addressed below.

CC and NC will have one AIO (which I agree with), but in a board game the CC are played by the RU (and the NC usually by the US). This means that if (for whatever reason) the JP player offers a peace, it rarely happens, because its not in the RU or US interest for a peace. The point of this post is to suggest that if the JP players offers a peace (lets say back to 1936 borders - so just Manchuria and none of Occupied China), that the Chinese AIO (CC and NC) would most times agree. (Happy to have historial discussion off line).

The CC and NC would then try to occupy the vacated cities, and importantly Shanghai (Victory City). This is then consistent with the AIO trying to do the best for ITSELF (and not be abused by the RU or US player)!

Why would JP offer this? Cost benefit analysis! The cost to conquer, or at least capture more resources in China, is high. As is the effort to garrison China. The JP player could well assess that, in say early 1942 (to use historial timelines) that the new resources captured (importantly oil - none in China) in the south are enough to maintain the war effort (bearing in mind a reduced land unit requirement).

THis is not a gamey strategy, but entirely plausable and within the rules of the game.

Your strategy can be interesting. You should test it in one of your campaigns against players and tell us if it was successfull or not. [:)]