AI for MWiF-Italy

[Tonqeen]

Ty for answer, now its clear [:)]

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: peskpesk

ORIGINAL: Tonqeen

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets



The desert hex east of Cairo has two all-sea hexsides on the Red Sea (the Gulf of Suez technically). So it can be invaded from the Red Sea. Suez itself does not have an all-sea hexside - it has two hexsides on the Suez Canal instead.

Isnt an all-sea hexside those with a dot in middle?

No. An all-sea hexside is one (or more) side of the hexagon that only touches water. As explained before,
(46,36) cannot be invaded from the Baltic but can be invaded from the North Sea. Hex (45, 36) is adjacent to the same two sea areas, but from which one it can be invaded, is reversed. I have color coded yellow for OK and purple for NOT OK.

Nice![&o]

[Easo79]

ORIGINAL: Extraneous




It takes 11 to 16 hours per ship to transit the Suez Canal

They go slow to avoid eroding the canal, have places where ships can pass others, but mostly ships sail in single file.

Today only 50 ships go through the canal a day. Your TRS would represent 20% of today's traffic in the canal.

This means it will take you 4 to 5 days for your 10 ships to clear the canal if they are sailing back to back.

I would say it will take 11 to 16 hours for the 10 ships to pass through the canal. Maybe a little bit more (the time used by the whole convoy to pass in front of an observer...:30 minutes? a couple of hours?)

[Extraneous]

ORIGINAL: Easo79

ORIGINAL: Extraneous




It takes 11 to 16 hours per ship to transit the Suez Canal

They go slow to avoid eroding the canal, have places where ships can pass others, but mostly ships sail in single file.

Today only 50 ships go through the canal a day. Your TRS would represent 20% of today's traffic in the canal.

This means it will take you 4 to 5 days for your 10 ships to clear the canal if they are sailing back to back.

I would say it will take 11 to 16 hours for the 10 ships to pass through the canal. Maybe a little bit more (the time used by the whole convoy to pass in front of an observer...:30 minutes? a couple of hours?)

Fifty ships a day pass through the canal / 24 hours in a day = 2.3 hours between ships.

Things not taken into account in this scenario:
Supply ships.
Refueling ships.
Cargo ships for artillery and vehicles.
The fact that the corps is under strength.

[composer99]

I trust we are keeping in mind that a unit moving through the Suez canal is doing so in the context of an impulse that is (a) an abstract block of time (considering a side can get as few as one, and, theoretically, as many as it takes to get an end-of-turn roll, in a turn), (b) part of a 2-month long turn, and (c) is an imposition of an alternating turn structure over a continuous-time process (fighting a war, ships transiting the Suez canal, etc.).

At any rate, I concur with pauldernyck: further discussion on ships moving through the Suez canal, in the context of a thread whose purpose is to assist in building an effective AIO for Italy, is unproductive.

[Extraneous]

ORIGINAL: composer99

I trust we are keeping in mind that a unit moving through the Suez canal is doing so in the context of an impulse that is (a) an abstract block of time (considering a side can get as few as one, and, theoretically, as many as it takes to get an end-of-turn roll, in a turn), (b) part of a 2-month long turn, and (c) is an imposition of an alternating turn structure over a continuous-time process (fighting a war, ships transiting the Suez canal, etc.).

At any rate, I concur with pauldernyck: further discussion on ships moving through the Suez canal, in the context of a thread whose purpose is to assist in building an effective AIO for Italy, is unproductive.

Yes, figuring an impulse summer would be as short as a few days where as in winter where it would be as long as 2 to 4 weeks


I was only responding to a question from Easo79.



I notice the map peskpesk post #344 ~ August 23, 2013 does not reflect the Eastern Mediterranean Sea and the Red Sea as being adjacent.

Is this going to be corrected?

[brian brian]

While raiding the Red Sea in World in Flames is interesting in theory, strategy for the AI needs to be based on more sound principles. Italy has 2 main and somewhat limited assets at the start of the game, in a strategic sense.

One is the advantages offered by the surprise rules. Either to attack enemy ports, best used only against the long-term opponent - the Royal Navy; or the ability of light infantry divisions to land on an enemy shore. The second advantage is using the pair of Italian TRS to reinforce such a landing. Mucking around in the Red Sea negates both advantages as a high enough box can't be reached to make for a successful landing, and the instant war is declared the Suez Canal is closed to Italy, ending all chance of reinforcing the operation. TRS sailing through Suez run the risk of being permanently unavailable, with Italy having no control of that decision, crippling Italian options for a year at least.

Attacking in the Red Sea is akin to the Romans attacking the barbarians two provinces away when they only have enough Legions available to operate successfully in an adjacent province. Poor strategy.

Operating in the Eastern Mediterranean at all is a more difficult strategy at the beginning of the game. A divisional landing anywhere within 4 hexes of the Wavell HQ is a risky proposition to start with. Italy's ability to reinforce a landing is not automatic when they have to fight both the Royal Navy and the French fleet to do it. Operating in the Eastern Med entails quite probably fighting in two sea zones, against superior forces.

Italy's best chance to do something overseas depends on using land-based air to assist their CV-less naval forces. This can be done simply in the Western Med, from 100% safely supplied land bases in Italy. In the Eastern Med, land-based air must operate from bases subject to having their supply lines cut by superior enemy naval forces.

If Italy wishes to use it's surprise impulse advantages early in the game (1939), it is far, far better to do so in the Western Med (or against an empty or weakly defended Malta). The Eastern Med is a viable option for the Axis, but operations stand a much better chance of success in 1940 once the French are too busy to fight at sea and about to disappear as an enemy force, and once additional forces (newly built air units, Luftwaffe reinforcements) can be effectively deployed to forward bases in Libya. This is the main thing the AI should decide - which side of the Mediterranean to commence initial operations in, and when to do it.

On the rare chance that Italy is still neutral or partially neutral at the fall of France, maybe a minor operation in the Red Sea could be considered. It would all hinge on the CW blithely watching Italy sail through Suez and then still remaining neutral for another impulse. Choosing a strategy based on the enemy being stupid isn't that wise. A CW AI should immediately DOW Italy if TRS or infantry loaded SCS sail through the Canal, particularly in 1940.

[paulderynck]

ORIGINAL: Extraneous
I notice the map peskpesk post #344 ~ August 23, 2013 does not reflect the Eastern Mediterranean Sea and the Red Sea as being adjacent.

Is this going to be corrected?

No, not needed, check under naval movement restrictions: "You can’t move naval units between the Eastern Mediterranean and the Red Sea, or between Suez and the Eastern Mediterranean if:
• the units are Axis controlled, the Allies have played US entry action 38 (see 13.3.3) and the Allies control Suez; or
• a major power you are at war with controls any of the hexes adjacent to the Suez Canal."

Obviously, as long as the restrictions are not active, then you can move naval units between the two.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: brian brian

While raiding the Red Sea in World in Flames is interesting in theory, strategy for the AI needs to be based on more sound principles. Italy has 2 main and somewhat limited assets at the start of the game, in a strategic sense.

One is the advantages offered by the surprise rules. Either to attack enemy ports, best used only against the long-term opponent - the Royal Navy; or the ability of light infantry divisions to land on an enemy shore. The second advantage is using the pair of Italian TRS to reinforce such a landing. Mucking around in the Red Sea negates both advantages as a high enough box can't be reached to make for a successful landing, and the instant war is declared the Suez Canal is closed to Italy, ending all chance of reinforcing the operation. TRS sailing through Suez run the risk of being permanently unavailable, with Italy having no control of that decision, crippling Italian options for a year at least.

Attacking in the Red Sea is akin to the Romans attacking the barbarians two provinces away when they only have enough Legions available to operate successfully in an adjacent province. Poor strategy.

Operating in the Eastern Mediterranean at all is a more difficult strategy at the beginning of the game. A divisional landing anywhere within 4 hexes of the Wavell HQ is a risky proposition to start with. Italy's ability to reinforce a landing is not automatic when they have to fight both the Royal Navy and the French fleet to do it. Operating in the Eastern Med entails quite probably fighting in two sea zones, against superior forces.

Italy's best chance to do something overseas depends on using land-based air to assist their CV-less naval forces. This can be done simply in the Western Med, from 100% safely supplied land bases in Italy. In the Eastern Med, land-based air must operate from bases subject to having their supply lines cut by superior enemy naval forces.

If Italy wishes to use it's surprise impulse advantages early in the game (1939), it is far, far better to do so in the Western Med (or against an empty or weakly defended Malta). The Eastern Med is a viable option for the Axis, but operations stand a much better chance of success in 1940 once the French are too busy to fight at sea and about to disappear as an enemy force, and once additional forces (newly built air units, Luftwaffe reinforcements) can be effectively deployed to forward bases in Libya. This is the main thing the AI should decide - which side of the Mediterranean to commence initial operations in, and when to do it.

On the rare chance that Italy is still neutral or partially neutral at the fall of France, maybe a minor operation in the Red Sea could be considered. It would all hinge on the CW blithely watching Italy sail through Suez and then still remaining neutral for another impulse. Choosing a strategy based on the enemy being stupid isn't that wise. A CW AI should immediately DOW Italy if TRS or infantry loaded SCS sail through the Canal, particularly in 1940.

I don't disagree with any of what you posted.

But what you are missing is that if the AIO limits its Italian plans (operational and strategic) to what a 'reasonable' Allied player would do, then a large number of possibilities would be eliminated from consideration.

Say the entire French fleet is deployed along the North Sea - and moves into the North Sea in the second impulse of the game (all their subs going into the Baltic). The Commonwealth puts one infantry division each in Gibraltar, Malta, and Alexandria. Their fleet is positioned somewhere unusual; perhaps it is entirely deployed to the Pacific with the intention of an early DOW on Japan. This leaves virtually nothing in the Med against the Italians.

Silly? Certainly! But the AIO has to be able to punish such silliness.

The major weakness of most AI opponents is that they do not adapt well to unusual circumstances. And that fault lies with the person who designed the AIO not planning on what it should do when the human opponent does something weird.

So we want the AIO to play well against strong opponents, and to wreak havoc on weak opponents. To do the latter means having a broad base of strategic and operational plans. Moving into the Red Sea would be foolish (as you noted) in almost all cases. However, the human player should have to take into consideration that the AIO 'might' do that if it 'sees' an opportunity.

[peskpesk]

Italy, especially if the involved in the war early on and the Mediterranean is not closed, needs NAV and FTRs's to survive. The positioning of the Air units is vital to the offensive and defensive capabilities of Italy.

If we ignore the critical Italian Cost Sea area there are a very limited numbers of hexes where the air units can go in order to maximize their potential and still be relatively safe and in supply; Mainland Italy and Sicily are the only two places left.

Due to their poor range the Euro Axis FTRs need to be adjacent to hex-dot in a sea area else they have no chance to reach the 2 box or better (later in war they need not be so close), a 4 range FTR makes it. The Euro Axis NAVs have a better range and can often reach the 3 box or better if they are one hex away to hex-dot in a sea area, a 9 range NAV makes it.

Below I have suggested starting hexes for Italian FTRs and NAVs (see the image) from where they beast can threaten/defend Western or Eastern Mediterranean sea. The Flying boats are not subject to the limitations, they are often best placed at costal hexes where other air units can’t stack at all and the where the same costal hex also is adjacent to a hex-dot in a sea area.

[peskpesk]

Deleted

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: peskpesk

Italy, especially if the involved in the war early on and the Mediterranean is not closed, needs NAV and FTRs's to survive. The positioning of the Air units is vital to the offensive and defensive capabilities of Italy.

If we ignore the critical Italian Cost Sea area there are a very limited numbers of hexes where the air units can go in order to maximize their potential and still be relatively safe and in supply; Mainland Italy and Sicily are the only two places left.

Due to their poor range the Euro Axis FTRs need to be adjacent to hex-dot in a sea area else they have no chance to reach the 2 box or better (later in war they need not be so close), a 4 range FTR makes it. The Euro Axis NAVs have a better range and can often reach the 3 box or better if they are one hex away to hex-dot in a sea area, a 9 range NAV makes it.

Below I have suggested starting hexes for Italian FTRs and NAVs (see the image) from where they beast can threaten/defend Western or Eastern Mediterranean sea. The Flying boats are not subject to the limitations, they are often best placed at costal hexes where other air units can’t stack at all and the where the same costal hex also is adjacent to a hex-dot in a sea area.

Very nice.

[Extraneous]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

ORIGINAL: Extraneous
I notice the map peskpesk post #344 ~ August 23, 2013 does not reflect the Eastern Mediterranean Sea and the Red Sea as being adjacent.

Is this going to be corrected?

No, not needed, check under naval movement restrictions: "You can’t move naval units between the Eastern Mediterranean and the Red Sea, or between Suez and the Eastern Mediterranean if:
• the units are Axis controlled, the Allies have played US entry action 38 (see 13.3.3) and the Allies control Suez; or
• a major power you are at war with controls any of the hexes adjacent to the Suez Canal."

Obviously, as long as the restrictions are not active, then you can move naval units between the two.

If this is from the new rules just say so. Otherwise I don't see what you're talking about. There is no 13.3.3 US entry actions ~ option 38 in the RAW.

11.4.4 Naval movement restrictions
1. You can’t move naval units between Kiel and the North Sea if an enemy major power controls any of the hexes adjacent to the Kiel Canal.

2. You can’t move naval units between the Eastern Mediterranean and the Red Sea, or between Suez and the Eastern Mediterranean, if a major power you are at war with controls any of the hexes adjacent to the Suez Canal.

3. You can’t move naval units between the Eastern Mediterranean and the Black Sea (even via Panderma) unless Istanbul is friendly controlled.

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.

5. You can’t move surface naval units (SUBs aren’t restricted) between the Western Mediterranean and Cape St. Vincent (even via Tangier) if a major power you are at war with controls Gibraltar.

6. You can’t move naval units between the North Sea and the Bay of Biscay (even via Brest or Plymouth) if a major power you are at war with controls London.

7. After the US has closed the Panama canal (see 13.3.2, entry option 33), you can only move naval units between the Gulf of Panama and the Caribbean Sea if:
* Its controlling major power is at war with the USA and lets you; or, if none,
* The US player lets you.

The “even via” clauses apply only when attempting to move between sea zones through the port in a single naval move. A unit can move into the port from a sea zone in one step and then move out to sea in the other sea zone in a later step.

Of course I disagree that it is not needed it will not be obvious to a new MWiF player, who won't know of the restrictions or that you can move naval units between the two.

[paulderynck]

The quote is from the new rules which is all I had on hand in my present location. You can find the identical wording with slight reference changes in RAW7 under Naval Movement Restrictions. But of course you know that - you're just trying to be difficult as usual.

If anyone else here has trouble believing that you can move directly from the East Med to the Red Sea and vice versa (in the absence of the aforementioned restrictions) please step forward.

[Easo79]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck


If anyone else here has trouble believing that you can move directly from the East Med to the Red Sea and vice versa (in the absence of the aforementioned restrictions) please step forward.

Well, I have never played the game, but the fact that the Suez Canal could do a different thing than connecting directly the Mediterranean to the Red Sea had never occurred to me. The idea of stopping at Suez Port to rest for a while and do some shopping, tempting as it is, is hardly an idea likely to be included in the game.

[Tonqeen]

You realy have to get those figs!

[Extraneous]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

The quote is from the new rules which is all I had on hand in my present location. You can find the identical wording with slight reference changes in RAW7 under Naval Movement Restrictions. But of course you know that - you're just trying to be difficult as usual.

If anyone else here has trouble believing that you can move directly from the East Med to the Red Sea and vice versa (in the absence of the aforementioned restrictions) please step forward.

paulderynck if you would read instead of just posting you might notice I have posted from the RAW all of 11.4.4 Naval movement restrictions.

If I understand your post correctly you are saying in order to play this game you have to have:
Bought all the Australian Design Group WiF products.
Become a member the WiF Yahoo Group.
Read all the WiF Yahoo Groups posts.
Read all the posts here at the MWiF Forums.
Been a member of MWiF final beta.

Or you are attached to another object by an inclined plane, wrapped helically around an axis.

[brian brian]

If the map for this game attempted to explain the words "Suez Canal" to me beyond simply printing those two words near the correct blue hexsides, I would presume I had stumbled onto some ginned-up version of Axis & Allies and move on to some other game immediately. Give the players a little credit, Extraneous.

I agree with Steve (too many posts back now to quote) that the AI has to capitalize on enemy mistakes. But a main reason many are skeptical about writing an AI to play World in Flames is the planning required to play it well. So let's say the Italian AI runs through it's strategic options, coordinates strategy with the other major powers, checks the enemy forces around the board and decides to launch a campaign in Algeria. If the Allies respond by seemingly weakening Egypt (sending Wavell to France) while reinforcements possibly destined for Suez can only reach South Africa (Sydney MIL), should the AI throw out what it already started to do (deployments in West Med sea zone) and switch to a strike at Egypt?

I mean, who attacks everything conquers nothing. Beyond the calculations of the current impulse state of the board, sticking to a multi-impulse / multi-turn / multi-year operation will sometimes require overriding the instant results of those calculation. If an idiot human Allied player leaves Gibraltar empty for an impulse, sure, take even a one division shot at it. But World in Flames requires more than single impulse thinking.

Regardless, please don't give the Italian AI any script that ever suggests sending a TRS through the Suez Canal before war with the CW. I can't dream up any scenario where that would ever pay off for Italy, a power with very little margin for error to ever be successful in the game.

[paulderynck]

ORIGINAL: Extraneous

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

The quote is from the new rules which is all I had on hand in my present location. You can find the identical wording with slight reference changes in RAW7 under Naval Movement Restrictions. But of course you know that - you're just trying to be difficult as usual.

If anyone else here has trouble believing that you can move directly from the East Med to the Red Sea and vice versa (in the absence of the aforementioned restrictions) please step forward.

paulderynck if you would read instead of just posting you might notice I have posted from the RAW all of 11.4.4 Naval movement restrictions.

If I understand your post correctly you are saying in order to play this game you have to have:
Bought all the Australian Design Group WiF products.
Become a member the WiF Yahoo Group.
Read all the WiF Yahoo Groups posts.
Read all the posts here at the MWiF Forums.
Been a member of MWiF final beta.

Or you are attached to another object by an inclined plane, wrapped helically around an axis.

Not at all. You just have to read point 2 under Naval Movement Restrictions - just as you posted - and apply the modicum of logic that you are unequipped with.

[composer99]

[8|][8|][8|]

Extraneous:

This is not the first time where you have incorrectly interpreted the rules and, instead of admitting the error and moving on, created a quagmire of posts doubling down on your incorrect position and, what's more, constructing strawmen versions of the criticisms against your claims to argue against.

Frankly, it appears you don't know the rules very well, despite your propensity to copy/paste them at length. There's nothing wrong with such lack of knowledge, per se. But when others attempt to correct your misapprehensions, your typical MO is as I have described immediately above. And that is tiresome to read and respond to. It certainly does not contribute to an environment of constructive discussion - rather, it positively hinders it.

In future, please consider the possibility that you might be incorrect before posting if you are about to make a claim regarding the rules of the game. If, after such consideration, you must post, which is fine as far as it goes - if you have an uncertainty about the rules better to post it and have it resolved - please refrain from doing so on the AI threads where it is almost certainly off-topic (on the basis that the AI knows the rules). Use another thread or create your own.

People asking questions about the rules is fine, even questions that might be regarded as silly or as having self-evident answers. What you have been doing here, with respect to the adjacency of the E. Med & Red Sea, or elsewhere with other rules, has been something other than asking questions for the sake of improving your understanding, and as such it certainly is not fine. Instead, it is a waste of time and effort.