AI for MWiF - USA

[paulderynck]

Yup if I saw this as the USA I'd try for a DoW as long as there was at least a 10% chance. Otherwise or maybe as well - you are never guaranteed finding stuff - I'd start using my naval moves to get CVs and the best TRSs out to other ports.

But if the JP moved out and then the turned ended and the next turn the axis gets Inititiative - then this could be very effective.

[npilgaard]

Looked through the many excellent posts in this thread - a few quick comments:

ORIGINAL: Froonp
Also, I like swaping BBs from the East / West Coasts before the end of 1941, so that the 8 BB that go to Pearl really are the worst ones. 3 naval moves by impulse, this is accomplished very quickly.

Usually it is preferred to have the worst BBs/CVs at Pearl in case of Japanese DoW.
However, depending on the overall situation (US chits level, Japanese navy is engaged against CW in NEI/Indian Ocean, or if the US player just likes to play a little risky [:)] it may be worthwhile to place the top BB/CVs in Pearl and go for a US DoW, hitting the Japanese hard (the convoy lines or a managable fleet) during the surprise impulse - if the Japanese CVs/BBs are committed already (at sea in NEI or elsewhere) the main US fleet can commit in relatively safety, easily taking out convoy escorts and - if lucky - crippling the Japanese convoy lines (for that turn, at least).
Hitting the Japanese convoy lines are very high priority in order to wear down/take out Japan, I think (of course this is not always possible, but if it is, the earlier the better). (Another top priority is sinking Japanese CVs - once the US get CV/ac superiority Japan is severely hampered.)

Btw, for the AI regarding the Philippines: since return to base is happening after US entry at turn end: if the US is planning to choose the Pearl Harbour or Philippines (or other similar) options at the end of a turn, then it is a good idea to sail out units to sea during the turn, letting them return to base to Pearl or Manila at the end of the turn, after the option is chosen (especially when returning to Manila it may surprise the Japanese, suddently having forces there, making it much harder to capture - just get the TRS out of there quickly, before the declaration of war comes...! [:)]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck
You can never have enough BPs with the U.S. The 8 you spend will be paid back the first 8 turns after you gear-up. After that the rest is all gravy. That is why you should build the factory the earlier, the better.

Without doubt the US will receive more BP overall if building factory (maybe synth as well) early on.
However, this has to be weighted against a number of things, e.g.:
- a unit built earlier will get more 'playing time' (unless destroyed [:)] ) than a unit built later
- the US likely wants to go for certain objectives as soon as possible, so the stronger it is when entering the war the better. Spending BPs on factories etc. will mean a few less units early on (but more during the end game)
- time is all-important for the allies, thus it is nice to get going right away
- during the end game the US often has so many units that is becomes somewhat difficult to use the all in an optimal manner (especially taking acitivity limits into consideration) - one for one, I find that a unit is worth more at the earlier stage of the game when there are fewer of them, than at the later stages.

Personally I tend not to build factories/synths, but I think that both options (building or not building factories/synths) are viable. It mainly depends on preferred overall US 'strategy': wanting to have a few more units early on, or more units later on.

[Extraneous]

ORIGINAL: composer99

From post #202:

How that there are the same hexes everywhere... the range from USA have changed which means that must planes can´t rebase to UK or to the pacific...

So the USA needs all of its transporters and amph ...

this is mostly because the American map was not at the right scale ...

So if I were a German player and I see that USA losses it´s naval gearing... I would react by not DOW on Denmark... which means that USA can´t rebase though Greenland... and force them to sail all air units ...with it´s fewer transporters ...

Regarding not going to war with Denmark:
It's a long time between the US enters the war and when Germany typically declares war on Denmark (most often the first turn of the game unless the weather turns rainy/stormy).

Is it worth giving the CW free access to the Baltic for 2 game years and then the CW/US free naval access to the Baltic afterward just to try and make the USAAF's life a little harder? Even if Germany leaves some extra troops to threaten a quick takeover of Copenhagen, there's no reason not to throw 1-2 subs or cruisers into the Baltic every turn and be a damned nuisance.

On top of all that, the Allies can just DoW Denmark themselves if they really want the rebase path in 1942. Or they can DoW Portugal for the Azores rebase path.


Regarding scaling:
If you are playing with triple rebase over friendly territory/sea areas and with extended-range planes, I rather doubt that US aircraft with ranges of 10 or more will be unable to rebase appropriately at the new scale (caveat: while I used to have CWiF I don't anymore so I can't verify this - perhaps a beta tester can do a hex count?)

Even on the paper maps most US planes need to take one of these routes to get to Europe: US-Azores-UK (if you get control of them somehow), US-Greenland-UK, or US-Newfoundland-Greenland-(Iceland?)-UK. Only quite long-range planes can fly direct.

Excuse me but assuming the Axis is competent enough to capture Copenhagen.

How does a DOW of Denmark give anyone but the Axis free access to the Baltic Sea for two game years? When…

11.4.4 Naval movement restrictions

4. You can’t move naval units between the Baltic Sea and the North Sea (even via Fredrikshavn or Kristiansand) if major powers you are at war with control at least 2 of Oslo, Copenhagen and Kiel.

[composer99]

Extraneous, the reply was in response to a suggestion that Germany forego declaring war on Denmark (and thus forego controlling Copenhagen, and thus not fulfill the conditions to restrict Allied naval movement into the Baltic) long enough to hamper US aircraft rebasing via Greenland/Iceland.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Extraneous

ORIGINAL: composer99

From post #202:

How that there are the same hexes everywhere... the range from USA have changed which means that must planes can´t rebase to UK or to the pacific...

So the USA needs all of its transporters and amph ...

this is mostly because the American map was not at the right scale ...

So if I were a German player and I see that USA losses it´s naval gearing... I would react by not DOW on Denmark... which means that USA can´t rebase though Greenland... and force them to sail all air units ...with it´s fewer transporters ...

Regarding not going to war with Denmark:
It's a long time between the US enters the war and when Germany typically declares war on Denmark (most often the first turn of the game unless the weather turns rainy/stormy).

Is it worth giving the CW free access to the Baltic for 2 game years and then the CW/US free naval access to the Baltic afterward just to try and make the USAAF's life a little harder? Even if Germany leaves some extra troops to threaten a quick takeover of Copenhagen, there's no reason not to throw 1-2 subs or cruisers into the Baltic every turn and be a damned nuisance.

On top of all that, the Allies can just DoW Denmark themselves if they really want the rebase path in 1942. Or they can DoW Portugal for the Azores rebase path.


Regarding scaling:
If you are playing with triple rebase over friendly territory/sea areas and with extended-range planes, I rather doubt that US aircraft with ranges of 10 or more will be unable to rebase appropriately at the new scale (caveat: while I used to have CWiF I don't anymore so I can't verify this - perhaps a beta tester can do a hex count?)

Even on the paper maps most US planes need to take one of these routes to get to Europe: US-Azores-UK (if you get control of them somehow), US-Greenland-UK, or US-Newfoundland-Greenland-(Iceland?)-UK. Only quite long-range planes can fly direct.

Excuse me but assuming the Axis is competent enough to capture Copenhagen.

How does a DOW of Denmark give anyone but the Axis free access to the Baltic Sea for two game years? When…

11.4.4 Naval movement restrictions

4. You can’t move naval units between the Baltic Sea and the North Sea (even via Fredrikshavn or Kristiansand) if major powers you are at war with control at least 2 of Oslo, Copenhagen and Kiel.

Something I discovered by accident when testing overruns is that if the Germans move into Copenhagen any naval units there can not exit the Baltic Sea. They can only rebase to Aarhus or Frederikshavn.

[Extraneous]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Something I discovered by accident when testing overruns is that if the Germans move into Copenhagen any naval units there can not exit the Baltic Sea. They can only rebase to Aarhus or Frederikshavn.

I believe I ran into that problem and reported it during the ADG WiF Beta (WiF Alpha for Froonp). I was informed that a "Scuttle" option was planned.

Note: The Peder Skram (CA) has a 1 range and the Niels Iuel (CA) has a 2 range. This information is from the Pions WiF-AiF-PatiF spreadsheet.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Extraneous

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Something I discovered by accident when testing overruns is that if the Germans move into Copenhagen any naval units there can not exit the Baltic Sea. They can only rebase to Aarhus or Frederikshavn.

I believe I ran into that problem and reported it during the ADG WiF Beta (WiF Alpha for Froonp). I was informed that a "Scuttle" option was planned.

Note: The Peder Skram (CA) has a 1 range and the Niels Iuel (CA) has a 2 range. This information is from the Pions WiF-AiF-PatiF spreadsheet.

It's not a problem. The code executed this correctly. Once the Germans enter Copenhagen, they control 2 of the 3 key cities and entering/exiting the Baltic is not possible for any Allied units.

[Extraneous]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: Extraneous

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Something I discovered by accident when testing overruns is that if the Germans move into Copenhagen any naval units there can not exit the Baltic Sea. They can only rebase to Aarhus or Frederikshavn.

I believe I ran into that problem and reported it during the ADG WiF Beta (WiF Alpha for Froonp). I was informed that a "Scuttle" option was planned.

Note: The Peder Skram (CA) has a 1 range and the Niels Iuel (CA) has a 2 range. This information is from the Pions WiF-AiF-PatiF spreadsheet.

It's not a problem. The code executed this correctly. Once the Germans enter Copenhagen, they control 2 of the 3 key cities and entering/exiting the Baltic is not possible for any Allied units.

So there are no longer issues with ships having to re-base that have insufficient range?

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Extraneous

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: Extraneous




I believe I ran into that problem and reported it during the ADG WiF Beta (WiF Alpha for Froonp). I was informed that a "Scuttle" option was planned.

Note: The Peder Skram (CA) has a 1 range and the Niels Iuel (CA) has a 2 range. This information is from the Pions WiF-AiF-PatiF spreadsheet.

It's not a problem. The code executed this correctly. Once the Germans enter Copenhagen, they control 2 of the 3 key cities and entering/exiting the Baltic is not possible for any Allied units.

So there are no longer issues with ships having to re-base that have insufficient range?

If an overrun naval unit has no ports within range, it is destroyed. I am not sure whether that is done automatically with an informative message or whether the player has to actively 'destroy' the naval unit. There's no real difference between the two.

[Extraneous]

What I am refering to is...

A naval unit is overrun.

The naval units range is not large enough to get it to a frindly port.

The ADG WiF game used to hang up if this occured.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Extraneous

What I am refering to is...

A naval unit is overrun.

The naval units range is not large enough to get it to a frindly port.

The ADG WiF game used to hang up if this occured.

That's the game situation I was describing.

[Extraneous]

So when a naval unit is overrun.

The naval units range is not large enough to get it to a frindly port.

MWiF doesn't hang up if this occurs?

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Extraneous

So when a naval unit is overrun.

The naval units range is not large enough to get it to a frindly port.

MWiF doesn't hang up if this occurs?

Nope. You can even overrun units multiple times.

[Centuur]

Personally I think that to many focus in the AI threads here is given to play with optional rules (like Oil, Pif, Sif etc. etc.). I get the opinion that this occurs due to the fact that most people in this forum are used to play with these rules in effect (and they are really nice rules to play with...).
However, a starting player would probably go in his first game without any optional rules.
I probably too would start MWIF with a basic game, just to be able to quickly understand the very nice tool box Shannon is building for the game. You now the: "which button does what exactly".
A basic game (without any optional rules) should have an AI which acts differently in comparison with a game with optional rules in effect. For the US for example, the building strategy has to be different, taking in to account the optional rules that are in effect... Will McArthur stay in the Phillipines or will he get out as soon as possible? Which combat table is being used (there are considerations regarding that to)? In basic game force pools the AI probably doesn't scrap any units at start. Even the set up be a point of consideration in combination with the optional rules in play.
I am a little worried: is the AI going to be able to cope with these differences?

[Red Prince]

ORIGINAL: Centuur

Personally I think that to many focus in the AI threads here is given to play with optional rules (like Oil, Pif, Sif etc. etc.). I get the opinion that this occurs due to the fact that most people in this forum are used to play with these rules in effect (and they are really nice rules to play with...).
However, a starting player would probably go in his first game without any optional rules.
I probably too would start MWIF with a basic game, just to be able to quickly understand the very nice tool box Shannon is building for the game. You now the: "which button does what exactly".
A basic game (without any optional rules) should have an AI which acts differently in comparison with a game with optional rules in effect. For the US for example, the building strategy has to be different, taking in to account the optional rules that are in effect... Will McArthur stay in the Phillipines or will he get out as soon as possible? Which combat table is being used (there are considerations regarding that to)? In basic game force pools the AI probably doesn't scrap any units at start. Even the set up be a point of consideration in combination with the optional rules in play.
I am a little worried: is the AI going to be able to cope with these differences?

Hopefully better than I can! [:)] For various reasons I'm testing with practically everything thrown in for optionals, and my logic gets a bit fuzzy after a while. But I am not a computer.

From what I understand, the logic for the AIO is being written to account for all of these concerns. If a particular rule isn't being used, that group of commands gets skipped, so to speak. If I can find the post where the structure is explained, I'll add it to this post.

-Aaron
-----
Edit: I've dug into a number of threads, and I just can't remember where I saw the breakdown of how decisions will be made. It might be in a monthly report or in one of the many AI discussions. I'll keep an eye open and try to figure it out. Sorry I couldn't help just yet.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Centuur

Personally I think that to many focus in the AI threads here is given to play with optional rules (like Oil, Pif, Sif etc. etc.). I get the opinion that this occurs due to the fact that most people in this forum are used to play with these rules in effect (and they are really nice rules to play with...).
However, a starting player would probably go in his first game without any optional rules.
I probably too would start MWIF with a basic game, just to be able to quickly understand the very nice tool box Shannon is building for the game. You now the: "which button does what exactly".
A basic game (without any optional rules) should have an AI which acts differently in comparison with a game with optional rules in effect. For the US for example, the building strategy has to be different, taking in to account the optional rules that are in effect... Will McArthur stay in the Phillipines or will he get out as soon as possible? Which combat table is being used (there are considerations regarding that to)? In basic game force pools the AI probably doesn't scrap any units at start. Even the set up be a point of consideration in combination with the optional rules in play.
I am a little worried: is the AI going to be able to cope with these differences?

Tactically this isn't a problem. For instance, the AIO will simply check to see if invasions are possible. Optional rules affect that a lot, but the AIO doesn't need to check into which rules are ON. It just lets the code for normal processing determine if invasions are possbile (or will be possible in the next impulse/turn). The same applies to virtually all of the rules involving additional units.

Strategically (as you noted) what optional rules are in effect makes a difference. And that means the AIO strategic plans have to take into consideration which optional rules are being used.

Operationally? Probably a mix of Yes/No.

[Centuur]

Weel, I think you've got a huge amount of work to take all these kind of things into account while programming the AI. [X(]

[composer99]

Question to drive some discussion on the AI threads:

What kind of USA SUB builds do people engage in and why?

[Centuur]

It depends. If the USA has got a Japan first policy, I would build some to kill the convoys. If not, I don't build them.

[brian brian]

Always a few at least in the middle of the game, but not till Russia is safe for sure.