AI for MWiF - Germany

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

The hex east of Bordeaux can be invaded.

Yes. But it is ZOC so it gets +1 to the notional unit.

[Orm]

France has 15 in partisan value (if my memory serves).

Therefore I think that a normal defending force for Axis in France should have 15 in garrison value.

Then I think there should be a minor defence force for France and a major defence force. Defining the strength levels for these should affect unit placement.

If Vichy France exits could affect this. And if Allies invade France then Germany should consider collapsing Vichy France.

[Klydon]

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: Neilster



Yeah. I haven't played WiF for ages. Why is that exactly? Doesn't Germany miss out on resources due to iced-in ports? What about the historical advantages Norwegian bases gave the Kriegsmarine?

It seems a pity because the historical Norwegian invasion was a very near run thing, which should translate into interesting WiF play.

Cheers, Neilster

That's why WIF players do not invade Norway - too much risk. The gains are slight and come later in the war: (1) intercepting Allied convoys to Murmansk/Archangel, (2) preventing the Commonwealth from invading Norway to open access to the Baltic Sea and/or invade Finland overland.

The Commonwealth has other things to do early in the war (although Churchill was all for invading Norway), so Germany isn't too worried about that happening. Usually the German player wants to attack the Lowlands and France ASAP, and sees Norway as a diversion of resources and time from that primary goal. Since there has been all the discussion recently about the Commonwealth putting units into Denmark, perhaps putting some into invading Norway should be examined. Taking Oslo would be very difficult if the Axis are determined to defend it, but cutting off the Swedish ore for several turns each year would make Germany very unhappy.

I have at least once used it as a wedge to attract CW units, which planned to get an extra US chit for assisting the minor. The US entry roll failed for them sadly.

Whenever the CW bungles their transports into a situation like this, is when I start the attack on France, barring blizzard or storm. France is desperate for British units if there is a German offensive in the winter.

Generally I frown on most winter operations, but an O-chit will break a flimsy French-only line. From there, simply ooze in, and squeeze easy hexes.

I think another reason you don't see much going on with Norway is that there are many other gambits the Germans can undertake that have more tangible benefits than invading Norway. I have seen plans to invade Hungary in 1939 along with going to war with Bulgaria in order to make Rumania a full partner although they still lose territory to the Russians. I have also seen a plan for the Germans to declare war on Yugoslavia right away and activate Rumania before the Russians can demand territory. All these also allow the Germans to continue to take land actions instead of having to deal with combine moves or sea moves.

Steve is correct France needs help very early. Each game is so variable because of weather, but any length of decent weather means France can be in serious trouble, even with CW help. In my current game, France fell early in M/A after the Germans used a chit at the end of the turn (80% chance to end the turn) and blew up 2 stacks of French that were 10 or more points on defense despite it being snow. The Germans went first again the next turn with good weather and France was pretty helpless, even with Gort + 4 CW corps.

[dhucul2011]

WIF has always done a poor job of reflecting the reality of several diplomatic events.

If Germany invades just Denmark then Norway would certainly moved into the Allied camp. Being able to invade Denmark without reaction is not realistic. We have always played with a house rule that if you DOW Denmark and not Norway then Norway goes Allied next impulse.

In addition we set a rule that 1 of the Swedish resources cannot go to Germany during November\December and January\February unless Norway is Axis or Neutral. That reflects the importance of Narvik and gives impetus for the Allies and Axis to seriously consider action here.

I think that MWIF should take the next step to model diplomatic events in a more detailed manner instead of copying RAW rule for rule.

As a second example, an overly aggressive Axis in 1939 should be punished by extra US entry chits.

Just my thoughts.

[Klydon]

They need to get the game running by RAW first before entertaining anything about house rules, although technically something could be done with the Swedish resource.

I think there are some built in penalties for the Axis in terms of what chits are in the pool by year. I am not sure, but I think the 1939 chits are bigger on average than the 1940 chits that get added.

[brian brian]

ORIGINAL: dhucul

WIF has always done a poor job of reflecting the reality of several diplomatic events.

If Germany invades just Denmark then Norway would certainly moved into the Allied camp. Being able to invade Denmark without reaction is not realistic. We have always played with a house rule that if you DOW Denmark and not Norway then Norway goes Allied next impulse.

In addition we set a rule that 1 of the Swedish resources cannot go to Germany during November\December and January\February unless Norway is Axis or Neutral. That reflects the importance of Narvik and gives impetus for the Allies and Axis to seriously consider action here.

I think that MWIF should take the next step to model diplomatic events in a more detailed manner instead of copying RAW rule for rule.

As a second example, an overly aggressive Axis in 1939 should be punished by extra US entry chits.

Just my thoughts.

good stuff, thanks.

Had never thought about the usual Axis DoW on Denmark like that. But a change like that should include a different movement restriction on the Baltic for the Allies. The historical Allied navies would not sail ships into the Baltic, rightly judging that to be a one way mission.

MWiF will only ever follow paper WiF from ADG I would think. Some day in the future perhaps the always ongoing development of the rules set will occur on the computer. I hope so.


And yes, the 1939 US Entry chits have much higher average values than 1940.





I'm not sure the Axis can always have 15 units to garrison France. That would be nice, sure, but the Axis have a lot of things to do all over the board. Aside from garrisoning Brittany and the Pas-de-Calais areas, they need a few units keeping ZoC on some of the woods hexes in eastern France as a first step. The Italians can help with all this……someone tell the Italian AI.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: dhucul

WIF has always done a poor job of reflecting the reality of several diplomatic events.

If Germany invades just Denmark then Norway would certainly moved into the Allied camp. Being able to invade Denmark without reaction is not realistic. We have always played with a house rule that if you DOW Denmark and not Norway then Norway goes Allied next impulse.

In addition we set a rule that 1 of the Swedish resources cannot go to Germany during November\December and January\February unless Norway is Axis or Neutral. That reflects the importance of Narvik and gives impetus for the Allies and Axis to seriously consider action here.

I think that MWIF should take the next step to model diplomatic events in a more detailed manner instead of copying RAW rule for rule.

As a second example, an overly aggressive Axis in 1939 should be punished by extra US entry chits.

Just my thoughts.

warspite1

Out of interest can you let me know your source(s) for that comment? I would have thought its one enormous step for a country like Norway to go from neutrality to the outright joining of one side or other. Would Denmark's invasion have really been sufficient? I would be surprised, but would love to know of any hard evidence to support that view.

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: dhucul

WIF has always done a poor job of reflecting the reality of several diplomatic events.

If Germany invades just Denmark then Norway would certainly moved into the Allied camp. Being able to invade Denmark without reaction is not realistic. We have always played with a house rule that if you DOW Denmark and not Norway then Norway goes Allied next impulse.

In addition we set a rule that 1 of the Swedish resources cannot go to Germany during November\December and January\February unless Norway is Axis or Neutral. That reflects the importance of Narvik and gives impetus for the Allies and Axis to seriously consider action here.

I think that MWIF should take the next step to model diplomatic events in a more detailed manner instead of copying RAW rule for rule.

As a second example, an overly aggressive Axis in 1939 should be punished by extra US entry chits.

Just my thoughts.

warspite1

Out of interest can you let me know your source(s) for that comment? I would have thought its one enormous step for a country like Norway to go from neutrality to the outright joining of one side or other. Would Denmark's invasion have really been sufficient? I would be surprised, but would love to know of any hard evidence to support that view.

You said it perfectly, Warspite1.

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: brian brian
I'm not sure the Axis can always have 15 units to garrison France. That would be nice, sure, but the Axis have a lot of things to do all over the board. Aside from garrisoning Brittany and the Pas-de-Calais areas, they need a few units keeping ZoC on some of the woods hexes in eastern France as a first step. The Italians can help with all this……someone tell the Italian AI.

I am not sure of that as well. I am just saying that is what the AIO should strive for. Their normal commitment for France. But with few resources available the AI should put the garrison strength in France to minor/low.

[larssto]

The most interesting problems to solve for the AIO are:
- Axis HQ placement
- ARM placement (blitz)
- Reserve units placement
- Which areas are most in need of whiteprints units
- Which areas do well with GAR units
- Min / Max number of units needed in an area.
- The areas relative priority
- Which major port is the primary Axis submarine base
- What areas are possible for IT to help to garrison

Any suggestions/comments?

I am not a great WiFer, but here are my thoughts:

HQs: I think you have the three best HQ hexes identified. The question is how many HQs and which HQs. In terms of which HQs there are a few factors to consider, but I generally tend towards putting my worst Axis HQs there (Rum HQ, Yugo HQ, IT HQ etc) as they are mainly there for supply purposes and anti-partisan duty. As to how many it's a bit more of a judgement call. One for sure, two if you can afford it, but the second can be added later ('42/'43). As to placement, it depends mainly whether I use Brest of Bourdeaux as a sub/naval base as you'll need an HQ to put either of these ports in supply.

White print: In my opinion, Brest should always be defended by a white print unit as it means that the supplying HQ can be withdrawn to a better position should be Allies invade further along the Normandy coast. Bourdeaux is another good candidate.

Sub base: I like Bourdeaux as a sub base, but both bases have downsides. For Brest it is the fact you need an HQ in the clear in order to provide supply during poor weather impulses (during which you want to use subs). For Bordeaux it's the risk of being isolated should the Allies invade in the La Rochelle area.

Area Priority: To me, anything east of the Seine has absolute priority. The Rouen to Lyon line behind the Seine is quite defensible, but will eventually succumb to Allied pressure and offensive chits. I like having units in all the ports as these are key for Allied reinforcements, though I never put units in Bayonne and rarely in Lorient.

IT units: If you are using minor country HQs, the IT units should be within supply range of either Paris or Brussels.

In general the defense of France is very dynamic and relies a lot on what is going on in other theaters, it also changes as the war progresses. Are the Soviets holding and tying down the Wehrmacht or are they crumbling with their backs to the Urals? Is Italy under threat? What is North Africa looking like? When did the US join the war? France is not an isolated theater, the whole coast up to Fredrikshaven have to be defended. The CW and US can pretty much land anywhere they like by around mid '42 if the CW built their Amph and Marine and certainly by '43 they'll have a solid invasion force. With the CW Amph and Marine they can easily land around 11-12 land combat factors anywhere next to the North Sea and Bay of Biscay, which can be tripled by shore bombardment and air. The Allies can also afford to sail out to either these sea areas, do ground strikes against a handful of target hexes and then invade the one that succeed. Which means you can guarantee to take any hex that is defended by 5 or less combat factors (using 1D10). Kicking the Allies back into the sea is the best defensive option for the Axis after a successful Allied landing, but that can be hard to do. I believe the CW BB fleet can field enough shore bombardment factors to both support the invasion and have enough left over to double the hex in defense (if you play that rule). In addition, the Allies will almost certainly be able to establish local air superiority over the invasion hex. On the other hand you only need an 'R' result to be successful.

I don't mean to write a novel about this, but it's a complicated issue with lots of 'ifs' and 'buts'. Hopefully some of what I wrote will be useful to you, though it's fairly standard stuff if you have played until that part of the game a couple of times.

[larssto]

warspite1

Out of interest can you let me know your source(s) for that comment? I would have thought its one enormous step for a country like Norway to go from neutrality to the outright joining of one side or other. Would Denmark's invasion have really been sufficient? I would be surprised, but would love to know of any hard evidence to support that view.

Off topic - I know[8|]

Disclaimer: I am Norwegian.

Remember that the CW had started mining Norwegian waters about 24h before the German invasion. If Germany had taken Denmark on 9 April and left Norway alone, I am sure Churchill would have felt vindicated enough to push for some gunboat diplomacy with Norway to prevent any further Axis expansion. In addition, the Norwegian government, while staunch 'Neutralists', were more CW-friendly than Germany-friendly. This is from Wikipedia about the Norwegian Foreign Minister at the time:

With the outbreak of the Second World War in September 1939, the Norwegian government declared the country neutral in the conflict. Both warring sides subsequently stated that they would respect Norway's neutrality, provided that she protect her neutrality against trespasses by the other side. Koht was clear from early on that Norway should remain neutral, but also that in the event of her being forced to enter the war it was critical that it was on the side of the British.[57]

In response to the British mining operation on 8 April 1940, the Norwegian government lodged formal protests with the British and French governments, while secretly remaining set on avoiding war with the Allies at all cost. Koht told the Norwegian parliament that he believed that the Allies were trying to bring Norway into the war. The Allied mining of the Norwegian coast coincidentally distracted the Norwegian government from realizing that large German forces had been on their way to invade Norway for several days prior.[62]

Even if Norway hadn't joined outright, I think that the occupation of Denmark by Germany would have brought the war so close to home for the Norwegian government that they would have felt justified to pre-emptively mobilize and harden their defenses (not that they were great in any case). Remember that that the German invasion of Norway relied in no small part on complete surprise, a more alert Norway may have been able to resist longer giving the Allies more time to reinforce.

[Extraneous]

ORIGINAL: Klydon

They need to get the game running by RAW first before entertaining anything about house rules, although technically something could be done with the Swedish resource.

I think there are some built in penalties for the Axis in terms of what chits are in the pool by year. I am not sure, but I think the 1939 chits are bigger on average than the 1940 chits that get added.

ORIGINAL: PionsWif-Aif-Patif.xls
1939 ~ Markers available 29
Zero x1
1 x9
2 x7
3 x6
4 x6
5 x1



1940 ~ Markers available 53
Zero x4
1 x10
2 x7
3 x3

1941 ~ Markers available 68
1 x1
2 x3
3 x3
4 x4
5 x3
6 x1

1942 ~ Markers available 82
2 x1
3 x3
4 x4
5 x3
6 x3

1943 ~ Markers available 94
3 x1
4 x2
5 x4
6 x5

[Courtenay]

MWiF does not precisely replicate these numbers. For example, in 1939, it doesn't matter how many other chits have been drawn; the odds of the next chit having any value are the same as the first chit. The average value in WiF is 2.41; the average value in MWiF is 2.33.

In 1940, it of course does matter how many earlier chits have been drawn. There will be at least six chits drawn in 1939 (the four German and two Soviet neutrality chits), and there will probably be some US chits. In any event, there will be at most 47 chits available in 1940, of which at least 4 will be zeros. I am being conservative; the expected number of chits is lower, and the expected number of zeros is higher. Thus a firm minimum of the chance of drawing a zero is 8.5%. In MWiF, the chance of drawing a zero in 1940 is 2.7%. Thus you are less than 1/3 as likely to draw a zero in 1940 in MWiF than you are in WiF. If the neutrality pool chits go back into the pool (1940 Barbarossa), the chance of drawing a 0 goes down in WiF, but it still is at least 7.5%.

[dhucul2011]

I am not saying that Norway would have historically joined the war for sure but what I have read here and in other places is that the Norwegian government was somewhat pro-Allied and would have seen an invasion of Denmark as a real threat. They certainly would have moved toward the Allied camp.

In addition, was the King of Norway not brother to the King of Denmark?

Since there is no way to model levels of alignment to one side or the other really then we just would make Norway go Allied. This would give a real reason to play out some historical consequences.

I guess another method would be for Norway to start shipping their resource to the CW AND stop the 1 Swedish resource in Winter from going to Germany on a Denmark only invasion.

Its just that right now there is no reason for the Axis to invade Norway and that's probably not realistic.

The other situation is the Netherlands.

I am quite sure that Belgium would have quickly moved towards the Allies if Germany attacked only the Netherlands.

Just one guys opinion on how we could better model some of these diplomatic chances in WIF.

SC2 does a good job of this.

[paulderynck]

[;)]Weren't George V, Czar Nicholas, and Kaiser Wilhelm all first cousins?[;)]

[michaelbaldur]

I don´t agree that a minor would join the other side, if somebody else was attacked

all minors tried desperately to stay out of the war ... if Denmark was attacked, Norway would have stayed neutral, like Sweden.


no government want to take it´s country into a bloody world war.

[dhucul2011]

Yes, that may be true but there needs to be something to make Norway more of an active theatre.

However, unless it is changed on the WIF side then I guess nothing will happen in MWIF.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

[;)]Weren't George V, Czar Nicholas, and Kaiser Wilhelm all first cousins?[;)]

warspite1

You beat me to it! And Queen Victoria was the Kaiser's grandma.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: dhucul

I am not saying that Norway would have historically joined the war for sure but what I have read here and in other places is that the Norwegian government was somewhat pro-Allied and would have seen an invasion of Denmark as a real threat. They certainly would have moved toward the Allied camp.

In addition, was the King of Norway not brother to the King of Denmark?

Since there is no way to model levels of alignment to one side or the other really then we just would make Norway go Allied. This would give a real reason to play out some historical consequences.

I guess another method would be for Norway to start shipping their resource to the CW AND stop the 1 Swedish resource in Winter from going to Germany on a Denmark only invasion.

Its just that right now there is no reason for the Axis to invade Norway and that's probably not realistic.

The other situation is the Netherlands.

I am quite sure that Belgium would have quickly moved towards the Allies if Germany attacked only the Netherlands.

Just one guys opinion on how we could better model some of these diplomatic chances in WIF.

SC2 does a good job of this.

warspite1

There is a difference between "moving towards the Allies" and joining the war. Belgium and Norway were already pro-Allied in the sense that they understood who the bad guys were. But remember, one of the frustrations of the Anglo-French pre-war was the Belgian refusal to even discuss plans in the event of an attack. The Belgians (perhaps not unreasonably) were so afraid of losing their neutral status in the eyes of the Germans, that they forbade such co-operation.

I suspect that had the Germans attacked only Holland the Belgians would have thanked their lucky stars and been even less willing to be seen to be co-operating with the Western Allies!

[Klydon]

Couple of comments.

One of the strengths of WiF is the "what if". There are not a lot of historical "chains" imposed. Just because the Germans invaded Norway in the real war does not mean it should be done every time or most every time in WiF.

Secondly, I don't think you will see any variation of MWiF like this from WiF for a very long, long time, if ever. The case to make Norway more attractive is either going to have to be addressed as house rules between players or the topic needs to be brought up to Harry.