AI for MWiF - China

[Extraneous]

I said I did not contest any of the above.

[paulderynck]

You can lend to as many active major powers on your side as your little heart desires.

[paulderynck]

ORIGINAL: Extraneous

Count the CP's and tankers in the convoy line.

If there are enough to ships to give more than 1 oil/resource to China then allocate enough ships to cover the situation with your Search & seizure.

If you do a Search and Seizure, you stop every lent thing going through that sea zone to powers you are at war with, no matter its quantity. (see FAQ Q13.3-26).

Often there can be more than one route for what is shipped. The lender has to announce specifically the quantities going (but not their source hexes) in the lending phase, and then prior to production, specifically what is going from where and on what route. After that, the opposing side can choose to do search and seizure where eligible.

[Extraneous]

You get NO links, sources, or references for any of this.



composer99: My source of information is the WiFFE-RAW-7.0 or when seriously interested in a rule AUSTRALIAN DESIGN GROUP WiF FE Rule Clarification Summary.

For me to go to a group outside these forums would be counter productive. It may or may not be how the game is being written.

As this is a forum (a public meeting place for open discussion) this is where we can discuss how to play the game.

Almost everyone who has been exposed to this game knows there is a steep learning curve involved.

What is a person new to WiF's only source of information? The WiFFE-RAW-7.0.

I posted that I was not contesting ANY of the comments or clarifications but I stated why I made my original post the way I did.



You have taken my post and attacked it even when I said I did not contest the interpretation of it.

And it turns out that the attack was even more meaningless by the rule clarification at AUSTRALIAN DESIGN GROUP WiF FE Rule Clarification Summary

Were you that bored?


Or are you saying that you must have a background in the game or be a member of a WiF information group (chosen by you) in order to post a comment in these forums?



Why have I always had to post my links, sources, and references when the rest of you do not even bother?

To respond civilly to your post I have waited a full day before drafting this.

[brian brian]

I truly think you should just start playing the game, seriously. A lot of your questions can answer themselves once counters are on the map....go with intuition on how you think things should probably work, and you will usually be right. If you try to read the WiF rules the way Bill Clinton answered questions at a deposition - the immortal quote "it depends on what your definition of is, is" - you will never escape the rabbit hole. And few gamers want to play against people who read rules like that. We play the game all the time, and we know what the definition of "is", is, because we play it and thus don't need to cite a source for what rule # subsection # defines "is". Constantly pinging the rules with the idea of "but what if the word 'is' means 'possibly'?" won't get you anywhere. Just play it. It is actually a lot easier to learn the rules that way. If you have played other hex-based wargames, the learning curve is not that steep. You move units, calculate odds, and attack. There's airplanes and ships too. Dive in.

Even so, after >20 years with the game, I still learn things about the rules, but those are usually very esoteric situations. I definitely can play the Barbarossa scenario backwards and forwards without rules questions, and I think anyone can if they try.

[composer99]

Response moved to a new thread as it is off topic for this one.

[Extraneous]

ORIGINAL: brian brian

I truly think you should just start playing the game, seriously. A lot of your questions can answer themselves once counters are on the map....

1) Go with intuition on how you think things should probably work, and you will usually be right.

2) If you try to read the WiF rules the way Bill Clinton answered questions at a deposition - the immortal quote "it depends on what your definition of is, is" - you will never escape the rabbit hole.

3) And few gamers want to play against people who read rules like that. We play the game all the time, and we know what the definition of "is", is, because we play it and thus don't need to cite a source for what rule # subsection # defines "is".

4) Constantly pinging the rules with the idea of "but what if the word 'is' means 'possibly'?" won't get you anywhere. Just play it. It is actually a lot easier to learn the rules that way.

5) If you have played other hex-based war games, the learning curve is not that steep. You move units, calculate odds, and attack. There's airplanes and ships too. Dive in.

6) Even so, after >20 years with the game, I still learn things about the rules, but those are usually very esoteric situations. I definitely can play the Barbarossa scenario backwards and forwards without rules questions, and I think anyone can if they try.

1) Oh so now I can skip the rules and just go with the flow?

2) You should use the honorific President Bill Clinton (even if you don't like him he is an ex-president). If you haven't noticed on several occasions the way the rules have been interpreted have been differently.

Need I mention where a couple of you found that you had been playing the game wrong for 20 years? Of course I do, you conveniently have forgotten that one.

3) Wrong, gamers don't like it when they find out they are misinterpreting the rules and are corrected. I know I don't.

4) Did you miss the part where I gave the definition of a forum?

5) If I have "played other hex-based war games"? Why would anyone want information on an "I go - You go" strategic World War 2 game that hasn't played a hex based war game?

6) I don't want to get you out of your "Barbarossa" comfort zone but that's a very basic scenario.


So lets summarize your post:

Don't bore you with the rules we'll just make them up as we play the game.
Don't correct any errors you make it will irritate you.
I have to post links and references because my views differ from yours.
Your group of people plays the game the way you have come to believe is right. So everyone else is wrong.
Barbarossa" is the only scenario anyone needs to play.
WOW, the game has hexes and cool counters.


I know you haven't noticed but through my posts I have been step by step leading you through the game.

The USA, CW options, Vichy France, giving resources and lease to China.



For those of you who thing I haven't been using my post to show how to play the game.

China ~ for Lend lease and giving resources

CW ~ for convoy lines and surprise port attacks

France ~ for Vichy France, Free France, and Naval moves

USA ~ for scrapping units and production

[composer99]

IMO it's time for this discussion to end on this thread. If it's not about the China AI it doesn't belong here.

[michaelbaldur]

I have been working on a strategic for china.

simply retreat back, then when Japan have taken enough factories (as I remember they only need to take 2 more), then surrender (after the first turn)

1. you make japan a neutral. (always fun to mess up other peoples plans).

2. you give Usa alot of chits. (something like 5-7 chits doing the first turn)

3. you give usa one more chit each turn.

4: japan have to DOW somebody to become active again. (more chits)

draw backs.

1. china is hard to liberate

2. japan gets alot of free units to use.

[peskpesk]

Letting China fall will make it much harder to bring down Japan due to massive JP buildup- even if US gets in the war earlier. The increased US production may make a difference though, however, to gain a large extra production, China needs to fall early to benefit from the extra chits to gear up and DoW. But the overall overall 'timeline' in the Pacific will not be affected that much, entry early but more effort needed to achieve goal.

Also the fall of China will free the Japanese forces early, quickly putting pressure on the CW, might even be before CW is ready (especially if the US is gaining lots of chits anyway) and probably force Japan to declare war on the USSR to become an active major power - that could tip the balance in axis favor for a successful Barbarossa.

That said messing up plans, becoming neutral etc. can throw anybody of so, the strategy and counter strategy has to be in the AIO arsenal.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: peskpesk

Letting China fall will make it much harder to bring down Japan due to massive JP buildup- even if US gets in the war earlier. The increased US production may make a difference though, however, to gain a large extra production, China needs to fall early to benefit from the extra chits to gear up and DoW. But the overall overall 'timeline' in the Pacific will not be affected that much, entry early but more effort needed to achieve goal.

Also the fall of China will free the Japanese forces early, quickly putting pressure on the CW, might even be before CW is ready (especially if the US is gaining lots of chits anyway) and probably force Japan to declare war on the USSR to become an active major power - that could tip the balance in axis favor for a successful Barbarossa.

That said messing up plans, becoming neutral etc. can throw anybody of so, the strategy and counter strategy has to be in the AIO arsenal.

Maybe.

1 - Giving Japan all of China, including all the resources (6) and red factories (2) is a lot to give away for nothing.

2 - That Japan then has all of its land units available for invasions is quite daunting too. Usually Japan has some of its best units committed in China and unavailable for invasion in the Pacific.

3 - The build strategy for Japan would change dramatically, with far fewer garrison and militia units needed to soak up losses and fill out the frontline in China. I'd be building more sea lift and air units for combat with the US. If China falls early enough, I'd also build more carriers and subs.

4 - Besides the DOW on USSR - which would be devastating when accompanied by an early DOW by Germany on the USSR - there is also the possibility of a DOW on the Commonwealth. Singapore and India could be ripe for the picking, what with the Commonwealth concerned with Italy in the Med and a possible Sea Lion by Germany. The Commonwealth has a lot of important land hexes to hold and extensive convoy pipelines vulnerable to attack.

I could see how someone playing the US/China might think this is a 'neat' idea since playing China is mostly defensive early in the war, and getting the US in early would give the player something to do (or at least look forward to). But the Commonwealth and USSR players would want the US player's head on a pike.

[Taxman66]

That is a hugely high risk strategy. All those free land units start looking at India & Australia or hell possibly even Persia/Africa.

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: michaelbaldur

I have been working on a strategic for china.

simply retreat back, then when Japan have taken enough factories (as I remember they only need to take 2 more), then surrender (after the first turn)

1. you make japan a neutral. (always fun to mess up other peoples plans).

2. you give Usa alot of chits. (something like 5-7 chits doing the first turn)

3. you give usa one more chit each turn.

4: japan have to DOW somebody to become active again. (more chits)

draw backs.

1. china is hard to liberate

2. japan gets alot of free units to use.

US do not get as many entry chits as you expect.

US entry is halved when China surrenders and there are no extra chit per turn after China has surrendered.

Therefore I think that China should only surrender if a few chits have an immediate effect on US entry into the war and the position in China is hopeless.

[peskpesk]

Here is a rough example of how the Strategic plan for China could be(the surrender is not so likely).

Strategic plan for China

Strategic Plan #1 Prevent Japanese advancement on both nationalist and communist front
The Goal is to keep the Japanese from advancing deeper into China for as long as possible.

Strategic Sub Plans
A. Defend Japan
B. Limited offensives

Strategic Plan #2 Prevent Conquest of communist
The Goal is to keep the Japan from taking the last communist cites/factories for as long as possible.

Strategic Sub Plans
A. Defend Langchow
B. Limited offensives

Strategic Plan #3 Prevent Conquest of nationalist
The Goal is to keep the Japan from taking the last nationalist cites/factories for as long as possible.

Strategic Sub Plans
A. Defend Chungking/Chengtu
B. Limited offensives

Strategic Plan #4 On the Offensive
The Goal is go on the offensive against Japan

Strategic Sub Plans
A. Japanese controlled china offensive
B. French-Indo China offensive
C. Manchuria/Korea offensive
D. Japan offensive

Strategic Plan #5 Surrender China
The Goal is to simply surrender when that phase of the game arrives.


Strategic plan #1 stays in effect until:
(1) China North Central(Sian) falls, in which case plan #2 goes into effect.
(2) China South West(Chihkiang,Changsha,Kweilin,Hengyang) or China South Central(Kunming,Nanning,Kweiyang) falls, in which case plan #3 goes into effect.
(3) The threat to the below areas from Japan is extinguished, in which case plan #4 goes into effect.
--a. China North Central(Sian,Yenan)
--b. China South West(Kunming,Nanning,Kweiyang)
--c. China South Central(Chihkiang,Changsha,Kweilin,Hengyang)
(4) The USA in not at war with Japan and the US is not close to declaring war and the USSR has a peace with Japan/No Barbarossa is likely and at least 2 out of the below:
--a. The number Chinese nationalist units is less than 6
--b. The number Chinese communist units is less than 3
--c. Chinas production has been reduced to less than 2 for more than 1 turn in a row.
in which case plan #5 goes into effect.

Strategic plan #2 stays in effect until
(1) No Communist units remain in China North East(Langchow) and China North
Central(Sian), at which time #1 goes into effect.
(2) Communist china is conquered, at which time #1 goes into effect.
(3) China South West(Chihkiang,Changsha,Kweilin,Hengyang) or China South Central(Kunming,Nanning,Kweiyang) falls, in which case plan #3 goes into effect.
(4) China North Central(Sian) is retaken, in which case plan #1 goes into effect.

Strategic plan #3 stays in effect until
(1) No nationalist units remain in China Sezchwan(Chungking,Chengtu), China South West(Chihkiang,Changsha,Kweilin,Hengyang), China South Central(Chihkiang,Changsha,Kweilin,Hengyang) in which case plan #1 goes into effect
(2) China Sezchwan(Chungking,Chengtu) falls, at which time #1 goes into effect.
(3) Nationalist china is conquered, at which time #1 goes into effect.
(4) China is conquered
(5) China South West(Chihkiang,Changsha,Kweilin,Hengyang), China South Central(Chihkiang,Changsha,Kweilin,Hengyang are retaken.

Strategic plan #4stays in effect until
(1) There is a threat to China North Central(Sian) or China South West(Chihkiang,Changsha,Kweilin,Hengyang) or China South Central(Chihkiang,Changsha,Kweilin,Hengyang) from Japan, in which case plan #1 goes into effect,

Strategic plan #5stays in effect until
(1) China is liberated, at which time #1 goes into effect

[Centuur]

It's not a good idea to surrender China in the first turn. The US only gets 3 or 4 extra chits and doesn't get an extra draw each turn. That is simply not large enough a gain for the allies. Of course, Japan needs to garrison China, so it needs to build TERR and GAR too, however he doesn't lose any more units in China and will be able to attack the USSR without having to worry about China. That can be pretty devastating for the allies.
I wouldn't put this option in the AI.
An early Chinese surrender always automatically forces the Japanese to DoW the USSR...

[michaelbaldur]

ORIGINAL: Centuur

It's not a good idea to surrender China in the first turn. The US only gets 3 or 4 extra chits and doesn't get an extra draw each turn. That is simply not large enough a gain for the allies. Of course, Japan needs to garrison China, so it needs to build TERR and GAR too, however he doesn't lose any more units in China and will be able to attack the USSR without having to worry about China. That can be pretty devastating for the allies.
I wouldn't put this option in the AI.
An early Chinese surrender always automatically forces the Japanese to DoW the USSR...

offcause they get the extra chit each turn

[Cad908]

ORIGINAL: michaelbaldur

ORIGINAL: Centuur

It's not a good idea to surrender China in the first turn. The US only gets 3 or 4 extra chits and doesn't get an extra draw each turn. That is simply not large enough a gain for the allies. Of course, Japan needs to garrison China, so it needs to build TERR and GAR too, however he doesn't lose any more units in China and will be able to attack the USSR without having to worry about China. That can be pretty devastating for the allies.
I wouldn't put this option in the AI.
An early Chinese surrender always automatically forces the Japanese to DoW the USSR...

offcause they get the extra chit each turn

Michael,

13.3.3 US Entry Actions

4. China conquered (Ja) -Note 3 Die 35

Note 3 = The USA also picks 1 extra chit a turn for each action (except conquests by surrender). It must go into the marked entry pool.

[michaelbaldur]

ORIGINAL: Cad908

ORIGINAL: michaelbaldur

ORIGINAL: Centuur

It's not a good idea to surrender China in the first turn. The US only gets 3 or 4 extra chits and doesn't get an extra draw each turn. That is simply not large enough a gain for the allies. Of course, Japan needs to garrison China, so it needs to build TERR and GAR too, however he doesn't lose any more units in China and will be able to attack the USSR without having to worry about China. That can be pretty devastating for the allies.
I wouldn't put this option in the AI.
An early Chinese surrender always automatically forces the Japanese to DoW the USSR...

offcause they get the extra chit each turn

Michael,

13.3.3 US Entry Actions

4. China conquered (Ja) -Note 3 Die 35

Note 3 = The USA also picks 1 extra chit a turn for each action (except conquests by surrender). It must go into the marked entry pool.

you are correct

[michaelbaldur]

but the middle strategic. give up some less impotent cities. to give US chits.

combined with a rear defence in the mountains.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: michaelbaldur


but the middle strategic. give up some less impotent cities.

warspite1

Wow..that's one way of killing off the Chinese...[X(]

[:D]