AI for MWiF - USA

[hjaco]

Well playing style is ceertainly different which is the way it should be.

A few notes though.

Most allied players place 3 US entry chits in Europe at start to choose option 15 - resources to western allies ASAP to boost French production, maximize attrition on Germany and delay them for as long as possible in France so that option will usually be chosen earlier rather than later. In some situations it may even make sense for US to go down 1 BP in production in order to lend even more resources to CW and France as they will end up with higher production multiples and those BP can be used directly against the axis right from the beginning.

The Lend Lease to Russia has been made more or less void now and if Adolf fights Russia early Winnie should be able to take care of the Lend Lease. We agree on that.

Back to my point. Say Adolf takes Gibraltar in summer 41' which is a viable scenario and goes heavily for surface, SUB, NAV and a late 42' Barbarossa. This will effectively cut convoys from Africa until Gibraltar is back in allied hands and any competent Japan player should later harass the convoys from Australia and maybe even send some long range raiders to Europe as Suez would be axis controlled. So you have only the resources from the Americas and UK to fuel your production and reorganisation. No matter how you put it there is only so many resources to go around so you will loose out production wise in this scenario by building a factory and not any Synths.

My argument is not that the AI should built a Synth in any game but that should be a component on how much focus the AI will put in Europe. So in a Pacific first let Winnie take care of himself otherwise build it.

[michaelbaldur]

another important thing is US gearing. if you start with a synth/ factories you will destroy your naval gearing. ...

and it will take a year to be up to 5-6 naval units a turn. which means around 20 less naval units between sep 39 and 41 ...

it also means that USA can´t build as many transporters/ amph before the war starts.


how that there are the same hexes everywhere .... the range from USA have changed which means that must planes can´t rebase to UK or to the pacific...

so USA need all of it´s transporters and amph ...

this is mostly because the American map was not at the right scale ...

so if I were a German player and I see that USA losses it´s naval gearing... I would react by not DOW on Denmark... which means that USA can´t rebase though Greenland... and force them to sail all air units ...with it´s fewer transporters ...


another point with the changed to the American map is that USA need to use more naval moved. because it´s reinforcements are spread out in more cities ....

so USA almost always need to use a naval or super combined to get it´s reinforcement send to the battlefields ...

[Extraneous]

Original: michaelbaldur

(A) Another important thing is US gearing. if you start with a synth/factories you will destroy your naval gearing...

And it will take a year to be up to 5-6 naval units a turn. Which means around 20 less naval units between sep 39 and 41 ...

it also means that USA can’t build as many TRS/AMPH (Transports/Amphibious units) before the war starts.


How that there are the same hexes everywhere... The range from the USA has changed, which means that must planes can’t rebase to UK or to the pacific...

so USA need all of it’s TRS and AMPH...

this is mostly because the American map was not at the right scale...

(b) So if I were a German player and I see that USA losses it’s naval gearing... I would react by not DOW on Denmark... which means that USA can’t rebase though Greenland... and force them to sail all air units ...with it’s fewer transporters ...


Another point with the changes to the American map is that USA need to use more naval moves. Because USA reinforcements are spread out in more cities....

So the USA almost always needs to use a naval or super combined to get their reinforcement sent to the battlefields...

You make good points but...

13.6.5 Building units
Naval units
The production cost of convoys is not shown on the counter. They take only one cycle to produce and cost 1 build point per convoy point. They take 4 turns to build. If you aren’t playing with Ships in Flames you have to build them in multiples of 5.

Here is what is available to be built at the end of “1939 September/October”.

Cost and time to build:
Repair CV Saratoga 2bp/2 Turns
Repair BB Maryland 2bp/2 Turns
Repair BB Colorado 2bp/2 Turns
CP 1bp/4 turns each
Tanker 1bp/5 turns each
12x TRN [fd] 2bp/3 turns each
3x AMPH (1939-1940) 3bp/3 or 4 turns

Construction Pool (ready for 2nd cycle)
BB Wyoming 3bp/6 turns
CVL Langley 2bp/6 turns

Naval Force Pool (ready for 1st cycle)
CV Hornet 2bp/6 turns
BB Indiana 2bp/6 turns
BB Massachusetts 2bp/6 turns
BB South Dakota 2bp/6 turns


(A) That’s why I have the CP (or Tankers) built with the factory/synth-oil.

Producing 3x CP/Tankers will keep the Naval gearing limit at 2 (3x CP or Tankers = 2 ships). If the economic option is chosen during production “1939 September/October” the Naval gearing limit for “1939 November/December” will be a 3.


(B) The only way you will know that the USA has decided to build a factory or synth-oil is at the beginning of the turn. What happens when you don’t know what the USA player is going to build?


Basically what are Germanys plans on “1939 September/October 2nd impulse” not “1939 November/December 1st impulse”?

If the AI knows that Germany has DoW’ed Denmark then building a factory or synth-oil is an option.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Extraneous
Axis Side
Possible 13.3.3 US Entry Actions:
20. Germany declares war on Denmark (30% chance a US entry chit will be added to the US entry pool Ge/It)

Allied Side
Possible 13.3.3 US Entry Actions:
31. USSR declares war on Persia (90% chance a US entry chit will be removed from the US entry pool Ge/It)
31. USSR declares war on Turkey (2 US entry chits removed and an 50% chance a third US entry chit will be removed from the US entry pool Ge/It)
32. CW declares war on Denmark (50% chance a US entry chit will be removed from the US entry pool Ge/It for each DoW)
32. CW declares war on Estonia, Latvia, or Lithuania (50% chance a US entry chit will be removed from the US entry pool Ge/It for each DoW)

What's this ? Which sane Russian player would DoD Turkey in S/O 39 ? or at all ?
Same for the CW declaring war as above.

Where is this going ????

[Extraneous]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: Extraneous
Axis Side
Possible 13.3.3 US Entry Actions:
20. Germany declares war on Denmark (30% chance a US entry chit will be added to the US entry pool Ge/It)

Allied Side
Possible 13.3.3 US Entry Actions:
31. USSR declares war on Persia (90% chance a US entry chit will be removed from the US entry pool Ge/It)
31. USSR declares war on Turkey (2 US entry chits removed and an 50% chance a third US entry chit will be removed from the US entry pool Ge/It)
32. CW declares war on Denmark (50% chance a US entry chit will be removed from the US entry pool Ge/It for each DoW)
32. CW declares war on Estonia, Latvia, or Lithuania (50% chance a US entry chit will be removed from the US entry pool Ge/It for each DoW)

What's this ? Which sane Russian player would DoD Turkey in S/O 39 ? or at all ?
Same for the CW declaring war as above.

Where is this going ????

Please note these are possible situations that have been discussed in the MWiF forums.

I am not setting the date in stone this is the soonest they could occur.

[composer99]

I declared war on Turkey as the CW in a Days of Decision game once. To force Germany to declare war on me for US entry effects (and scheduling).

I would also add that it is not inconceivable for a USSR player or Allied side to DoW Turkey or the Baltics, although it is certainly unlikely to occur at the start of the game.

It is the sort of thing I would want the AIO to analyze, even if it almost never implemented such an action.

[hjaco]

Strange things sure happen in WIF. I have been playing WIF for almost 20 years and have still to see the allies declaring war on Turkey aside from a late war DOW in a tight objective game to grab Istanbul.

What arguments is there for the allies to attack Turkey?

[paulderynck]

I saw it happen when the Germans had just attained the objectives needed to allow them to align Turkey on their next impulse. It was a "pre-emptive" strike by the CW and US and was pretty effective because then they had a surprise impulse against the Turks. Usually if Germany can align Turkey, the Axis can be halfway to Jerusalem that same impulse.

[brian brian]

the USA likes to attack Turkey at times as part of a western advance into the Balkans, which both spreads out the German land units and grabs several objectives before the Russians can (you could somewhat accurately call it the Churchill Strategy, though he preferred an attack into Yugoslavia and Greece to attempt to woo the Turks onto the Allied side). the Turks can't hold all of the entry points (ports) against multiple para corps. In the long run the place holds an objective hex, a red factory and two resources.

[micheljq]

I saw USSR attack Turkey once. That was a game where the Axis was controlling the Med, USSR wanted to pass on eastern Turkey and attack the Axis in Irak. The soviets were able to get near Mosul in 1945, I do not remember if they took it and as myself I do not find it was a great strategy. USSR should have concentrate all it's forces on Germany.

[composer99]

From post #202:

how that there are the same hexes everywhere .... the range from USA have changed which means that must planes can´t rebase to UK or to the pacific...

so USA need all of it´s transporters and amph ...

this is mostly because the American map was not at the right scale ...

so if I were a German player and I see that USA losses it´s naval gearing... I would react by not DOW on Denmark... which means that USA can´t rebase though Greenland... and force them to sail all air units ...with it´s fewer transporters ...

Regarding not going to war with Denmark:
It's a long time between the US entry into the war and when Germany typically declares war on Denmark (most often the first turn of the game unless the weather turns rainy/stormy).

Is it worth giving the CW free access to the Baltic for 2 game years and then the CW/US free naval access to the Baltic afterward just to try and make the USAAF's life a little harder? Even if Germany leaves some extra troops to threaten a quick takeover of Copenhagen, there's no reason not to throw 1-2 subs or cruisers into the Baltic every turn and be a damned nuisance.

On top of all that, the Allies can just DoW Denmark themselves if they really want the rebase path in 1942. Or they can DoW Portugal for the Azores rebase path.


Regarding scaling:
If you are playing with triple rebase over friendly territory/sea areas and with extended-range planes, I rather doubt that US aircraft with ranges of 10 or more will be unable to rebase appropriately at the new scale (caveat: while I used to have CWiF I don't anymore so I can't verify this - perhaps a beta tester can do a hex count?)

Even on the paper maps most US planes need to take one of these routes to get to Europe: US-Azores-UK (if you get control of them somehow), US-Greenland-UK, or US-Newfoundland-Greenland-(Iceland?)-UK. Only quite long-range planes can fly direct.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: composer99

From post #202:

how that there are the same hexes everywhere .... the range from USA have changed which means that must planes can´t rebase to UK or to the pacific...

so USA need all of it´s transporters and amph ...

this is mostly because the American map was not at the right scale ...

so if I were a German player and I see that USA losses it´s naval gearing... I would react by not DOW on Denmark... which means that USA can´t rebase though Greenland... and force them to sail all air units ...with it´s fewer transporters ...

Regarding not going to war with Denmark:
It's a long time between the US entry into the war and when Germany typically declares war on Denmark (most often the first turn of the game unless the weather turns rainy/stormy).

Is it worth giving the CW free access to the Baltic for 2 game years and then the CW/US free naval access to the Baltic afterward just to try and make the USAAF's life a little harder? Even if Germany leaves some extra troops to threaten a quick takeover of Copenhagen, there's no reason not to throw 1-2 subs or cruisers into the Baltic every turn and be a damned nuisance.

On top of all that, the Allies can just DoW Denmark themselves if they really want the rebase path in 1942. Or they can DoW Portugal for the Azores rebase path.


Regarding scaling:
If you are playing with triple rebase over friendly territory/sea areas and with extended-range planes, I rather doubt that US aircraft with ranges of 10 or more will be unable to rebase appropriately at the new scale (caveat: while I used to have CWiF I don't anymore so I can't verify this - perhaps a beta tester can do a hex count?)

Even on the paper maps most US planes need to take one of these routes to get to Europe: US-Azores-UK (if you get control of them somehow), US-Greenland-UK, or US-Newfoundland-Greenland-(Iceland?)-UK. Only quite long-range planes can fly direct.

[michaelbaldur]

so 49 hexes ....

that means that you need a (17 range or 9 extended range) air plane to fly direct Canada/UK

only the black widow and the twin mustang fighters have that kind of range ...

for bombers it is only lnd4s and nav3 that have that kind of range ....

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: michaelbaldur

so 49 hexes ....

that means that you need a (17 range or 9 extended range) air plane to fly direct Canada/UK

only the black widow and the twin mustang fighters have that kind of range ...

for bombers it is only lnd4s and nav3 that have that kind of range ....

I haven't looked at it in detail but you might be able to fly a Naval Air mission and make the return to base reach the British Isles.

[Ullern]

Interesting point. The distances might be different.

But after some test: Hey! The differences between MWIF and WIF are really incredible small! Although it's never been quite clear exactly how you're supposed to count when getting off the American minimap, but using my way off counting on the WIFFE board game (using the American mini map) I get:

• 48 hexes from Saint Jonh's to Plymouth.
• 48 hexes from Saint Jonh's to Brest.
• 42 hexes from Saint Jonh's to Casablanca.
• If using an additional rebase via Greenland, the distance Sydproven to Plymouth is 29 hexes.
• If using an additional rebase via Greenland, the distance Sydproven to Casablanca is 24 hexes.

Flying from Saint Jonh's do I always do, but if I need to rebase to Saint John's that means it takes to impulses and air missions to get to Europe. Flying via Greenland makes that three impulses. I experimented earlier with flying via Iceland with even shorter range aircraft, but I found the cost in air missions to be too expensive for the Iceland option, so I never do that.

What about MWIF?

• 49 hexes from Saint Jonh's to Plymouth.
• 46 hexes from Saint Jonh's to Brest.
• 49 hexes from Saint Jonh's to Casablanca.
• But Sydproven to Plymouth/Casablanca is actually longer than Saint Jonh's to Plymouth/Casablanca, so those options are no longer good.

Very close I'd say. And I always thought getting to Casablanca with so few moves in WIF the board game was very gamey. (North Atlantic Sea Area is very long in the North-South direction but WIF RAW allowed you to fly to the northernmost hex in North Atlantic on the American minimap and still use the southernmost North Atlantic arrow on the European map, which means the aircraft "jumped" a huge step southwards.)

[brian brian]

again from post #202

ORIGINAL: michaelbaldur

so if I were a German player and I see that USA losses it´s naval gearing... I would react by not DOW on Denmark... which means that USA can´t rebase though Greenland... and force them to sail all air units ...with it´s fewer transporters ...

and I know this the AI for USA thread, but this reminded me of a fun move I like to make sometimes on the first turn. That is to break down the initial German MTN corps at start in Kiel. Then if the weather in the Arctic and one or two Royal Navy intercept attempts allow, DoW Denmark with a combined impulse and land the mountain division in Iceland. Does this gain the Germans very much? No, not really; maybe a few less Danish CP survive if the Allies set any up there for some reason. They'll rarely be able to keep the place in supply unless a Gibraltar+Sea Lion campaign gets wildly successful. The point is to freak out the CW....what is Adolf up to now? Lay down a U-boat or two during that build phase, or even lay down an AMPH that you never finish and the BEF might hardly even leave England. You might lose a +0.5 on an always difficult assault on Leningrad later on in the game if you can't rescue the mountain division via another lucky run by a heavy cruiser (or maybe even the Bismarck, what the heck). If the division gets flipped somehow you might even have to risk a couple-three convoy points over the winter of 1940 when you have little else to do anyways. In the meantime the CW might sweat a bit....or even try and figure out a way to get it back, a bit easier with actual hexes of Iceland to land on. Perhaps I posted this before, I forget.

[SirWhiskers]

ORIGINAL: Gurggulk

Placing all transports on the west coast is perfectly acceptable.
My deployment suggestion has a symmetry that balances the east and west coast fleets. [:)] Which made me happy.

So we could have Option B

East Coast Fleet in Norfork
West Coast Fleet and 4 Transports in San Diego
Submarines in Seattle.

It's been ages since I last played WIF, but I was reading the original Fire and Movement article recently. It included a series replay where the US player did this and the Japanese player attacked San Diego instead of Pearl Harbor. The US player lost half his transports and never really recovered.

Is such an attack possible in MWIF? If so, what's the best alternative for the US player?

[michaelbaldur]

ORIGINAL: SirWhiskers

ORIGINAL: Gurggulk

Placing all transports on the west coast is perfectly acceptable.
My deployment suggestion has a symmetry that balances the east and west coast fleets. [:)] Which made me happy.

So we could have Option B

East Coast Fleet in Norfork
West Coast Fleet and 4 Transports in San Diego
Submarines in Seattle.

It's been ages since I last played WIF, but I was reading the original Fire and Movement article recently. It included a series replay where the US player did this and the Japanese player attacked San Diego instead of Pearl Harbor. The US player lost half his transports and never really recovered.

Is such an attack possible in MWIF? If so, what's the best alternative for the US player?

øhhh only Japanese port within range are a minor port in the Marshalls ...

I can´t see japan use 4 naval units to port attack west coast ... yes Japan could destroy a transporter ... but then the americans would sail out ..and smash the small fleet ..

no carrier is worth a transporter ...


edit : truk are with in range ... but only from 3 start carriers (kaga 4, hiruy 3 ,jrynjo 2,)

but that means that you will have to split up the fleet ..... and ends up in the 0 section ..

if you don´t have pearl harbour you will be to low in the sea area. and that can only end up a disaster

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: SirWhiskers

ORIGINAL: Gurggulk

Placing all transports on the west coast is perfectly acceptable.
My deployment suggestion has a symmetry that balances the east and west coast fleets. [:)] Which made me happy.

So we could have Option B

East Coast Fleet in Norfork
West Coast Fleet and 4 Transports in San Diego
Submarines in Seattle.

It's been ages since I last played WIF, but I was reading the original Fire and Movement article recently. It included a series replay where the US player did this and the Japanese player attacked San Diego instead of Pearl Harbor. The US player lost half his transports and never really recovered.

Is such an attack possible in MWIF? If so, what's the best alternative for the US player?

It is still possible to do such attack.

One example on how to do this. Japan make a naval and sails with 6 carriers from The Marshals to the US West Coast. Then he stays there to next turn. The next turn he declares war on USA and take another naval (or a supercombined), makes his port strike and then sails back on his naval movement. This way Japan does not leave his carriers vulnerable next to the US West Coast. (The Marshals can stack up to 12 naval units. If you place a HQ there you can reorganize some of your carrier fleet when you return to base)

Easiest way to defend the US transporters is to have most (all?) of them on the East Coast where they can't be reached by Japan. And when the war breaks you sail back the ones you need against Japan by using the Panama Canal. That only takes one turn and you wouldn't have used them that much on the first turn of war against Japan anyway.

[michaelbaldur]

ORIGINAL: Orm

ORIGINAL: SirWhiskers

ORIGINAL: Gurggulk

Placing all transports on the west coast is perfectly acceptable.
My deployment suggestion has a symmetry that balances the east and west coast fleets. [:)] Which made me happy.

So we could have Option B

East Coast Fleet in Norfork
West Coast Fleet and 4 Transports in San Diego
Submarines in Seattle.

It's been ages since I last played WIF, but I was reading the original Fire and Movement article recently. It included a series replay where the US player did this and the Japanese player attacked San Diego instead of Pearl Harbor. The US player lost half his transports and never really recovered.

Is such an attack possible in MWIF? If so, what's the best alternative for the US player?

It is still possible to do such attack.

One example on how to do this. Japan make a naval and sails with 6 carriers from The Marshals to the US West Coast. Then he stays there to next turn. The next turn he declares war on USA and take another naval (or a supercombined), makes his port strike and then sails back on his naval movement. This way Japan does not leave his carriers vulnerable next to the US West Coast. (The Marshals can stack up to 12 naval units. If you place a HQ there you can reorganize some of your carrier fleet when you return to base)

Easiest way to defend the US transporters is to have most (all?) of them on the East Coast where they can't be reached by Japan. And when the war breaks you sail back the ones you need against Japan by using the Panama Canal. That only takes one turn and you wouldn't have used them that much on the first turn of war against Japan anyway.

I would think that that is to risky ... you will still be out there a impulse ..in a low section ...

what happens if USA rolls that magic 3 ...Dow you ...

move out his fleet .. picks surface ... and smash your fleet ...