AI for MWiF - USA

[hakon]

Of course, as this strategy is getting better known, it should be relatively easy to counter for the axis. The first indication that the allies are going for this, is that the US puts only 1 initial chit in the german/italian pool, and the other 2 in the japanese pool.

If this is done, Germany can do 1 out of 2 things to stop the bessarabia claim:
- DOW yugoslavia in impulse 3 of S/O, and align Rumania at once (my favourite in any case).
- Set up strong enough againt belgium/france to threaten an early conquest of france in the case that france attacks belgium/holland, ie stop tem before they can set up behind the dyle or even the rhein. The best thing would be to knock out belgium in impulse 3 of s/o in this case.

In the last case, Germany must be willing to spend both of her offensive chits against france to ensure a quick and painless conquest of france in 1940, as german production can become very small without those resources.

Garmany should probably also build 1-2 synth plants when this happens.

If france is in a position to hold the dyle or even the rhein, Germany should not risk loosing the rumanian oil (unless, of course, you dont play with oil).

[composer99]

If this is done, Germany can do 1 out of 2 things to stop the bessarabia claim:
- DOW yugoslavia in impulse 3 of S/O, and align Rumania at once (my favourite in any case).
- Set up strong enough againt belgium/france to threaten an early conquest of france in the case that france attacks belgium/holland, ie stop tem before they can set up behind the dyle or even the rhein. The best thing would be to knock out belgium in impulse 3 of s/o in this case.

They can also accept the Soviet border claim and hand over Bessarabia, which does not have any US entry effect whatsoever.

In any case, the "all-out Allied aggression in Europe" strategy is not strictly under the US' AIO purview only: from the US' point of view we are concerned with the US entry situation that this imposes upon us and how that will funnel our own military & production strategies.

[c92nichj]

A decent counter is to setup a force in western germany, happily let the wallies DOW Belgium and rush in with Germans defending Brussels.
You're across the dyle allready in '39, have Belgium as an aligned minor and didn't have to take a USE hit for a DOW on Belgium. Pretty good result for Germany.

As germany sets up lasts it should be possible to see if the wallies are setup for this strategy.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: c92nichj
As germany sets up lasts it should be possible to see if the wallies are setup for this strategy.

Oooooh [X(] !

Look at the enemy set ups for gathering intelligence on their intentions.

Now why don't I have that written down somewhere! I can see a ton of other places to do that sort of analysis. Or at least I can now that you have mentioned it.

[composer99]

After a long and not entirely welcome break from thinking about the US AIO, I've come up with a more or less comprehensive list of the US' strategic/tactical "objectives", that is, sites on the map that it wants some kind of control over. For ease of consideration I've split them up into PTO and ETO (Pacific and European Theatres of Operation). I've also tried to split them up into "bite-size" groups if that will help the AIO work.

Pacific Theatre of Operations Master List of "Objectives"

Sea Areas/Sea Area Groups
- Eastern Pacific (the collection of sea areas east of the Dutch Harbour - Honolulu - Pago Pago line stretching back to the US, incl. Polynesia)
- Hawaiian Perimeter (Central Pacific Ocean, The Marshalls, Hawaiian Islands, Christmas Islands)
- North Pacific (Bering Sea & Okhostk Sea)
- South Pacific (New Zealand Coast, Tasman Sea, Coral Sea)
- Central Pacific (The Solomons, Bismarck Sea, Marianas)
- Japanese Perimeter (Timor Sea, South China Sea, China Sea, Sea of Japan, Japanese Coast)

Land Regions
- Hawaii/Midway
- Dutch Harbour/Pago Pago
- Australia/New Zealand
- Fiji/New Hebrides
- Solomon Islands/Rabaul
- New Guinea
- NEI
- Philippines
- Marshall Islands
- Caroline Islands
- Guam/Marianas/Palau Islands
- Bonin Islands
- Taiwan
- Japan
- Mainland Asia South (Indochina, Thailand, Malaya, Canton, Hong Kong)
- Mainland Asia North (Korea, Manchuria, China north of the coastal mountains)

Special
- Japanese Supply Lines
- Japanese Convoy Lines
- Japan's Airspace

European Theatre of Operations Master List of "Objectives"

Sea Areas/Sea Area Groups
- The Atlantic (all the Atlantic sea areas that are on the printed America map)
- UK Perimeter (North Sea, Faeroes' Gap, Bay of Biscay)
- African Coast (Cape St. Vincent, Cape Verde Basin, Gulf of Guinea)
- The Meditteranean (E. Med, W. Med, Italian Coast)
- Baltic Sea (The Baltic Sea)

Land Regions
- UK/Ireland
- Scandinavia (Norway, Sweden, Denmark)
- French North Africa (Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia)
- North Africa (Libya, Egypt)
- The Levant (Palestine, Syria)
- Turkey
- The Balkans (Greece, Albania, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia)
- Sardinia/Sicily
- Italy
- Iberia (Portugal/Spain)
- France/Low Countries
- Germany

Special
- Allied Convoy Lines
- Allied Supply Lines
- Axis Supply Lines
- Axis Convoy Lines
- European Airspace

To keep the length of my posts shorter, I'll just stop here and keep going on a different post.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

At first perusal, it looks good to me. Busy lttle country that US of A.

[composer99]

In an effort to save some typing time, when I do a by-year breakdown of what the US wants to be doing in terms of attaining objectives, I'm going to resort to the following labels:

Defence - The US wants to hold on to this objective in the face of potential or actual enemy attacks. The US does not have numerical superiority in combat values (CVs) in this theatre.

Ignore - The US either has or can bring superior CVs into this theatre, but has better uses for them and will not allocate forces to secure it.

Probing Attack - A step up from Defence, this is where the US does not have superiority in this theatre, but will launch raids to secure airbases, attempt to sever enemy supply lines, and generally engage in low-risk attacks to get better position.

Conflict - When the CVs of both sides in this theatre are about equal. The US will be more aggressive than when in Probing Attack mode, but will not compromise its basic defences in the theatre.

Superiority - The US has a slight but telling edge in CVs in the theatre. At this point the US should begin attempting to acquire the theatre's primary objective. Defensive garrisons can be stripped down at this point.

Supremacy - The US has a substantial advantage in CVs in the theatre. Defensive garrisons should be limited to holding objective hexes and key staging grounds/resource hexes. The US will use its advantage to acquire all objectives in this theatre and press on to further theatres.

Dominance - No enemy forces of any significance remain in this theatre. The US has acquired all worthwhile objectives in this theatre, and it is primarily a staging area for advancement into further theatres.

When I add the tag "Allied" to any of those above descriptors, that means that the US coordinates with the Allies it cooperates with (CW and France/Free France) and to a lesser extent with USSR and China to achieve the desired result in each theatre.

So, once again, I'll split the post up. On to the next one.

[composer99]

Correction: Off to a Christmas party, THEN when I get back on to the actual objective break-downs.

[Greyshaft]

ORIGINAL: composer99
Correction: Off to a Christmas party, THEN when I get back on to the actual objective break-downs.

You're planning to go to a Christmas Party and THEN work on writing a strategy? Don't drink too much Eggnog or your name might be Husband E. Kimmel [:D]

[composer99]

You're planning to go to a Christmas Party and THEN work on writing a strategy? Don't drink too much Eggnog or your name might be Husband E. Kimmel

No worries there - since I ended up staying long after to watch the hockey game between the Ottawa Senators (my team) and the Vancouver Canucks (which, having been played in Vancouver ended at 0h15 local time) and then sat around watching TV with the hosts' son (a friend of mine) and some attractive women friends of his, I've decided that some sleep must intercede between the party and the strategic write-ups. [;)]

[composer99]

PTO Sea Area/Group Breakdown

These represent what level of domination the US should strive to achieve in each area over time; whether they actually will will depend on how well the Japanese play, how lucky either side is, the extent to which the US has to commit its naval forces to battle against Germany and Italy, and probably some other factors as well.

The working assumption is that the US will be at war with Japan by early 1942 at the latest.

Eastern Pacific
Ideally, the US will have Dominance in this group through the entire war; however if the Japanese secure Pearl Harbour then it may well have a period of Conflict/Superiority/Supremacy in 1941-42.

Hawaiian Perimeter
1942 (early): Conflict
1942 (late): Superiority
1943 - 1945: Dominance

North Pacific
1942: Supremacy
1943 - 1945: Dominance

South Pacific
1942 (early): Allied Probing Attacks
1942 (late): Allied Conflict
1943 (early): Allied Superiority
1943 (late): Allied Supremacy
1944 - 1945: Allied Dominance

Central Pacific
1942 (early): Defence
1942 (late): Probing Attacks
1943 (early): Conflict
1943 (late): Superiority
1944 (early): Supremacy
1944 (late) - 1945: Dominance

Japanese Perimeter
1942: Probing Attacks
1943 (early): Probing Attacks
1943 (late): Conflict
1944 (early): Superiority
1944 (late): Supremacy
1945: Dominance

[composer99]

PTO Land Region Breakdown

Hawaii/Midway
1942 (early): Superiority
1942 (late): Supremacy
1943 - 1945: Dominance

Dutch Harbour/Pago Pago
1942 (early): Superiority
1942 (late): Supremacy
1943 - 1945: Dominance

Australia/New Zealand
1942 (early): Allied Conflict
1942 (late): Allied Superiority
1943 (early): Allied Supremacy
1943 (late) - 1945: Allied Dominance

Fiji/New Hebrides
1942 (early): Conflict
1942 (late): Superiority
1943 (early): Supremacy
1943 (late) - 1945: Dominance

Solomon Islands/Rabaul
1942 (early): Defence
1942 (mid): Probing Attacks
1942 (late): Conflict
1943 (early): Superiority
1943 (late): Supremacy
1944 - 1945: Dominance

New Guinea
1942 (early): Defence
1942 (mid): Probing Attacks
1942 (late): Conflict
1943 (early): Superiority
1943 (late): Supremacy
1944 - 1945: Dominance

NEI
1942: Allied Defence/Ignore
1943 (early): Allied Probing Attacks
1943 (late): Allied Conflict
1944 (early): Allied Superiority
1944 (mid): Allied Supremacy
1944 (late) - 1945: Allied Dominance

Philippines
1942 - 1943: Defence/Ignore
1944 (early): Superiority
1944 (mid): Supremacy
1944 (late) - 1945: Dominance

Marshall Islands
1942 (early): Conflict
1942 (mid): Superiority
1942 (late): Supremacy
1943 - 1945: Dominance

Caroline Islands
1942 (early): Probing Attacks
1942 (late): Conflict
1943 (early): Superiority
1943 (mid): Supremacy
1943 (late) - 1945: Dominance

Guam/Marianas/Palau Islands
1942: Probing Attacks
1943 (early): Conflict
1943 (mid): Superiority
1943 (late): Supremacy
1944 - 1945: Dominance

Bonin Islands
1942 - 1943: Probing Attacks/Ignore
1944 (early): Supremacy
1944 (mid) - 1945: Dominance

Taiwan
1944 (early): Conflict
1944 (mid): Superiority
1944 (late): Supremacy
1945 - Dominance

Japan
1944 (early): Ignore
1944 (mid): Conflict
1944 (late): Superiority
1945: Supremacy/Dominance

Mainland Asia South
1942: Allied Defence
1943 (early): Allied Probing Attacks
1943 (late): Allied Conflict
1944 (early): Allied Superiority
1944 (mid): Allied Supremacy
1944 (late) - 1945: Allied Dominance

Mainland Asia North
1942: Allied Probing Attacks
1943: Allied Conflict
1944 (early): Allied Superiority
1944 (late): Allied Supremacy
1945: Allied Supremacy/Dominance

[composer99]

PTO Special Areas Breakdown

Japanese Supply Lines
1942: Probing Attacks
1943 (early): Conflict
1943 (late): Superiority
1944: Supremacy
1945: Dominance

Japanese Convoy Lines
1942: Allied Probing Attacks
1943 (early): Allied Conflict
1943 (late): Allied Superiority
1944 (early): Allied Supremacy
1944 (late) - 1945: Allied Dominance

Japanese Airspace
1943 (late): Probing Attacks
1944 (early): Conflict
1944 (mid): Superiority
1944 (late): Supremacy
1945: Dominance

[Shannon V. OKeets]

These are excellent and reflect your usual thoughtfulness.

They are a schedule for what the USA would like to acheive. However, what seems to be missing is how to prioritize between which areas to keep on schedule.

For example, assume that everything is perfectly on schedule at the start of 1943. The USA now has a list of things to get done during the year. Where should it start? What if it is behind schedule in one area? Should that area take precedence over the others until they are all equally behind schedule, or should that one lapse be ignored and the rest of the master schedule maintained?

As I said, it is a question of priorities, especially when things aren't going well, or are going so well that maybe an early victory is possible.

As a player, I would probably give priority to the drive through the center of the Pacific, taking out major ports as stepping stones - but that is without giving it any serious thought. Since you have done so much on this, I expect you have a ready answer of your own.

[composer99]

These are excellent and reflect your usual thoughtfulness.

They are a schedule for what the USA would like to acheive. However, what seems to be missing is how to prioritize between which areas to keep on schedule.

For example, assume that everything is perfectly on schedule at the start of 1943. The USA now has a list of things to get done during the year. Where should it start? What if it is behind schedule in one area? Should that area take precedence over the others until they are all equally behind schedule, or should that one lapse be ignored and the rest of the master schedule maintained?

As I said, it is a question of priorities, especially when things aren't going well, or are going so well that maybe an early victory is possible.

As a player, I would probably give priority to the drive through the center of the Pacific, taking out major ports as stepping stones - but that is without giving it any serious thought. Since you have done so much on this, I expect you have a ready answer of your own.

_____________________________

Steve

Agreed. The prioritizing is really the key function of the US (or any) AIO, and probably the true test of its competence: determining where to focus its efforts given (a) plentitude or scarcity of its own forces, (b) plentitude or scarcity of allied forces, (c) plentitude or scarcity of enemy forces, (d) amount of time left in the game, and some other things that do not occur to me at the present.

I would guess that the highest priority for the US in the PTO is to secure mastery over the China Sea sea area. So, in that respect your instincts as a player are dead-on: first priority in the earlier stages of the conflict must be to drive along the Central Pacific and secure the Marshalls, the Carolines, the Marianas/Guam, the Bonin Islands, and Manila; all the while submarines and later surface/carrier forces prowl the China Sea for convoys or attempt to draw out the IJN to crush it.

This way, if things are going very well for the allies as a whole, the stage is set for invasions of Taiwan and Tokyo in so that they are in hand if an automatic victory can be assured.

If things are going more or less on schedule, then a little extra effort on the US' part to drive across the Central Pacific will draw Japanese forces there, and that way the US and its allies can later catch up on their timetables in other sectors.

And if things are not going very well, if the US focuses its energies on pushing towards the China Sea then the diversion of Japanese attention and forces to counter it may well save Australia or India from dire threats.

[dhatchen]

Something that has not been mentioned about the US Entry Pools but is likely included in these ideas is the situation where the US has a load of '0's in the pool and needs to dump some.

In many WiF games there is some kind of understanding between the Allies that a certain option means 'Go for broke - I have Zeros' or a caution to back off means a good chit draw.

The could be handled by some kind of diplomatic message to human players or may be a press headline like "USSR actions in Eastern Europe Deplorable" pops up. Computer AIs would receive some kind of slow down or free rein signal.

[scout1]

One question about the AI for American and the Commonwealth. In real life, these two "tried" to coordinate to a common goal. In reality, the Brit's wanted to push the Med where the US wanted the direct method. The US compromised a bit here. But to one extent or another (and this would be a good/fun overall variable as to the degree for any given game) is to tie these two countries as a loose/close grouping in terms of stategic goals.

Again, my lack of background in the game may make this a silly request, just one that would be interesting ....

[Glen Felzien]

Not so silly. [:)] I loved being able to play US/UK as my powers to control. I could coordinate to my hearts content. However, this leads to a level of cooperation that is simply too coordinated. Normally the two powers are played by two different people. This can lead to a degree of independance that needs to be there. Sometimes the US/UK players simply could not even talk to each other their disagreements so strong leaving the Axis side to enjoy the fireworks! [:D]

That said, there ought to be a sliding scale for the level of cooperation from game to game as well as based on the US election outcome.

[composer99]

Not so silly. I loved being able to play US/UK as my powers to control. I could coordinate to my hearts content. However, this leads to a level of cooperation that is simply too coordinated. Normally the two powers are played by two different people. This can lead to a degree of independance that needs to be there. Sometimes the US/UK players simply could not even talk to each other their disagreements so strong leaving the Axis side to enjoy the fireworks!

That said, there ought to be a sliding scale for the level of cooperation from game to game as well as based on the US election outcome.

_____________________________

Glen

I played at WiFCon last summer, and it was extremely entertaining to watch the Western Allied players in action (I was Italy/Japan). They bickered alternately like an old married couple or like... well, like the British and Americans in the war.

In a game where either the CW or the US (or both) are played by AIs, the amount of Allied coordination would depend at least partly (or maybe mostly?) on the game's skill setting (more skill = more coordination). This could of course be generalized to both alliances in general: good Axis players team up to stretch either the CW or the USSR (or both) at the global level in order to beat the stuffing out of them before the US' mighty war economy turns things around. Not-so-good Axis players do what the Axis did in the war: pursue their own localized wars while trying to fight global-thinking and global-fighting opponents.

Another important factor is the relevance of individual victory in the game. The more importance attached to each power trying to get the most objectives for itself, the less coordination there will be between allies on each side.

Alas, US election results will not factor into the equation until a Days of Decision add-on is made, but hopefully that will be only a matter of time.

[Froonp]

Coordination between allies is one of the keys to victory in WiF.
I talk about operational coordination, not only strategical.
A few examples of operational coordination are (speaking of WiF, not the true war) :
1) Transporting CW troops with US TRS / AMPH so that the US has a naval action and the CW a land action (or the reverse).
2) Transporting CW PARA with US ATR, thus savng the precious CW air missions of a CW land action.
3) Carpet bombing & Ground Striking with the CW bombers on the German European 44 line under an Air Offensive Chit while the US under a land offensive chit is positionned to assault & blitze the positions struck bu the CW. This is crucial. Without this, the Western allies are like a man with only one leg.
4) Sailing German ships and / or SUBs (and leaving them at sea eventually too) with a few Italian SUBS so that the Italians can initiate the searches while chooisng combined actions, and the German can focus on land actions.

Those 4 are only from the top of my head, but tactical cooperation is a must in playing some countries in WiF.

I think this can be achieved by the loaning feature of CWiF.
In 1) the US TRS / AMPH are loaned to the CW for this impulse, in 2) the US ATR are loaned to the CW for this impulse, in 4), the German ships are loaned to the Italian for this impulse & more.

Only for 3) I do not have a ready solution in WiF with a human and AI countries played as a team.

Cheers.