AI for MWIF Iraq

[peskpesk]

Threats to guard against:
...
As above plus


Threat of a land advance toward Baghdad

IF any of the countries at war has
a organized LandUnit AND
it’s in a adjacent country/territory to Iraq
it’s fast moving (reach the Baghdad in two impulses) AND
it’s in supply or can be put in supply or can be reorganized after moving

THEN

There is threat of a land advance toward Baghdad


Threat of invasion on Basra

IF the Weather is not Fine or Rain then there is no risk of invasion

IF any of the countries at war has a:

Organized TRS/AMPH/SCS AND one of A or B

A)
it’s in supply or can be put in supply AND
it has range to Rea Sea the AND
there is a organized LandUnit AND
the LandUnit it’s in supply or can be put in supply AND
the LandUnit and the transporting unit can cooperate AND
the transporting unit can transport the LandUnit AND
the LandUnit can invade from the transporting unit AND
the LandUnit is on a costal hex Rea Sea OR stacked with the transporting unit AND
the chance of a successful invasion is > 20 %

B)
It’s in the Rea Sea the AND
there is a organized LandUnit stacked with the transporting unit AND
the LandUnit can invade from the transporting unit
the chance of a successful invasion is > 20 %

THEN

There is threat of invasion on Basra


When a setup is used
...
As above plus

* The Basra defence
Is consider to be used when A,B AND C

* No Threat of a land advance toward Baghdad
* No Threat of paradrop on/close to the capital
* Threat of invasion on Basra

[Neilster]

An Allied invasion of Iraq should go pretty well as long as it is given a proper WW2-style codename like "Thunderclap" or "Pie-cart". "Freedom Eagle" or some other contemporary, propaganda-based bollocks, obviously dreamed up by an overpaid PR flunky, will inevitably lead to it getting bogged-down for yonks. Probably [:'(]

Cheers, Neilster

[brian brian]

I noticed in my current game something about these excellent AI routines PeskPesk is working on...I assume when a country is aligned by a Major Power without a DoW, the MP's "set-up reinforcements" routine will be called to make the set-up decisions???

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: brian brian

I noticed in my current game something about these excellent AI routines PeskPesk is working on...I assume when a country is aligned by a Major Power without a DoW, the MP's "set-up reinforcements" routine will be called to make the set-up decisions???

I intend to have separate routines for the original setup positions and for bringing in reinforcements. Placing a minor country's units on the map falls into the category of original setup.

Bringing in reinforcements is an entirely different kettle of fish. Usually war will be raging and some of the reinforcements will have been earmarked for specific theaters of operations. Also, reinforcements are much more restricted in where they can be placed.

It is far better to have separate routines for these decisions rather than code a single general purpose routine that has additional embedded conditionals (branching logic).

[brian brian]

OK, I knew you were already thinking about this.

When you align a minor country that hasn't been attacked, however, you are generally on the offensive and the set-ups are totally different. So I would think you would need completely different set-up logic trees. Think about how to set-up Finland after Germany declares war on the Soviet Union in 1941 vs how to set it up after a Soviet DoW in 1941 while Germany is in Spain.

Here is an example...in my current game the Iraqi CAV will be sent to take the CW ports on the Arabian peninsula and eventually will garrison the Saudi oil for the Japanese. There is little else for it do of use really, based on the map positions of all the relevant Major Powers.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: brian brian

OK, I knew you were already thinking about this.

When you align a minor country that hasn't been attacked, however, you are generally on the offensive and the set-ups are totally different. So I would think you would need completely different set-up logic trees. Think about how to set-up Finland after Germany declares war on the Soviet Union in 1941 vs how to set it up after a Soviet DoW in 1941 while Germany is in Spain.

Here is an example...in my current game the Iraqi CAV will be sent to take the CW ports on the Arabian peninsula and eventually will garrison the Saudi oil for the Japanese. There is little else for it do of use really, based on the map positions of all the relevant Major Powers.

That doesn't matter.

The logic is fairly simple, and follows what I developed for a 3D (4 by 4 by 4) tic tac toe program in 1968.

1 - see if you can you 'win' immediately
2 - counter any immediate threats
3 - see if you create an immediate threat
4 - counter any threats (such as your opponent creating an immediate threat)
5 - see if you can create any threats, once removed (to be created the next time it is your turn
6 - and so on.

Peter is worrying about the immediate loss of the capital, or any other threat of the minor being conquered. That is the highest priority. If those don't exist, then he is looking for a marauder setup where he can threaten the enemy with something disasterous (or at least annoying). Barring the availability of something that can be done offensively, then he is looking to prevent invasions/paradrops that might lead to being conquered. And so on.

If Finland is aligned and the USSR has nothing that threastens Finland, then Peter's border 'defense' is actually an offensive stance.

Now as for coordinating moves with the aligning major power, that will probably have to wait until the impulse after the minor country is aligned. However, the decision to align a minor is going to depend on the expected benefit of using its units and territory, so the AIO might already be setting up to exploit an undefended border (e.g., Karelia).

[brian brian]

in that case the Marauder defenses need a bit more development. I don't recall Persia's, for example, including a sudden drive on Samarcand because war with Russia had already started and the Axis had broken through Suez and aligned Persia after Iraq. The Marauder 'defenses' have been designed as to what can be accomplished in a one or two impulse raid before the country falls to the invader, but when an expanding power is aligning a small country, the long-term outlook is much different.

Iraq's set-up in the aformentioned scenario depends on who controls Persia...if the Russians do then Iraq's best role is probably to cut supply to their garrisons on the oil wells, while staying in supply itself if possible - if Barbarossa has started and the Russians can't threaten Iraq very much in return, as your logic predicts. But if Iraq has no contact with the rest of the Axis simply cutting a Russian rail link temporarily might not gain much aside from a 1 point resource lost to the Allies and taking a Free French Beirut might be worth more to the Axis if an overwhelming CW force is invading from Kuwait or a Russian force from Persia. Come to think of it, it almost makes better sense to set up separate trees for Allied or Axis alignments of some of these countries. ???

Finland can do three different things in 1941. It can go for it's best possible attack on Murmansk when it's air force has surprise advantages, it can deploy for a war of manuever to cut the rail line to Murmansk and/or Archangel (HQ placement critical for these first two), or it can simply wait around for the eventual German winter campaign against Leningrad. But these possibilities should be looked at in terms of Russian defenses, not Russian threats. Maybe Russia has a very strong garrison around Leningrad, but has left the defense of Murmansk to reserve units that set-up disorganized, quite a potential opportunity for an attacking force on such a glittering strategic prize as Murmansk. But if the AI is hypnotized by Russian forces in Leningrad that can't actually afford to go on the offense into Finland in the summer of 1941, too much defensive thinking could lead it to miss good offensive opportunities.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

Bump.