AI (general): location v. destruction of enemy

[composer99]

I would think that the only real goal in war (or in WiF) is to win. Everything you do in a war is a means to that end.
 
In WiF, you win by conquering objective hexes on the map and then having more of them at the end of the game than you are expected to. For example, Germany needs 10 objectives at the end of the Global War (39-45) game to "break even", she is "winning" if at the end of August 1945 she has 11 or more (bidding to pick major powers affects this total, but the principle is the same).
 
The only way to destroy enemy forces (apart from overruns) in WiF is to engage in combat (naval, air, land). All three of these forms of combat carry with them considerable risks to the attacker except when he has overwhelming superiority. As a rule of thumb, if you can get what you want without fighting for it, you are almost always better off.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

Can we get back to the very narrow question I posed?

How do you choose between Assault or Blitz? As the attacker? As the defender?

[Mziln]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Can we get back to the very narrow question I posed?

How do you choose between Assault or Blitz? As the attacker? As the defender?

IMO the Defender should always choose the Assault table. There is no need to give the attacker a Breakthrough result if you have a choice.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Can we get back to the very narrow question I posed?

How do you choose between Assault or Blitz? As the attacker? As the defender?

As the attacker, I would choose Blitz everytime I can, because :
- Blitz are more easy at taking the hex than Assaults (result needed to take the hex is 16 in Blitz, and 20 in Assault).
- Blitz inflict less casualties to me than Assault.
- Blitz disrupt me less than Assault.

The only drawback of Blitz is that it directly kills the enemy less often than Assault. BUT, when the Assault kills the enemy, the Blitz retreat or Shatter them. An enemy retreated is an enemy disrupted, so it can be killed latter. Also, If a shattered (and retreated) enemy can't be killed later, it can be shattered instead. Also, when the assault table kills, at the same numbers the Blitz table Shatters (B) the enemy, which is as good as a kill sometimes.


As the defender, I'd choose Assault everytime I can, simply because it denies the Blitz benefits to the attacker. There are exceptions. I would choose the Blitz table sometimes time when I don't care of loosing ground and when I wish to save units, and the enemy only have low odds against me, so that the survivablity of my units is greater. China and Russia are two places where you will do that sometimes.

[fvianello]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Can we get back to the very narrow question I posed?

How do you choose between Assault or Blitz? As the attacker? As the defender?

actually, the thread title is: "AI (general): location v. destruction of enemy", so I think you are the one off topic

[Mziln]

ORIGINAL: HanBarca

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Can we get back to the very narrow question I posed?

How do you choose between Assault or Blitz? As the attacker? As the defender?

actually, the thread title is: "AI (general): location v. destruction of enemy", so I think you are the one off topic

Nope, on topic. You have to figure how to make the AI choose a combat table

[:D] But I changed the title for you just in case [:D]

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: HanBarca

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Can we get back to the very narrow question I posed?

How do you choose between Assault or Blitz? As the attacker? As the defender?

actually, the thread title is: "AI (general): location v. destruction of enemy", so I think you are the one off topic

Sorry. I could have started a new thread for the question (probably should have) but I try not to start a new thread for every little thing, but instead put them with similar (usually broader) topics.

I did not mean that you were off topic - though I see how my request could seem like that.[:(] I just wanted to try to get answers to the question I posed since it is something I want to figure out before the end of the week.

I guess this is another case of mixed goal sets: I want to keep the thread open to the general discussion (such as your posts) and simultaneously get answers to my single question.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Mziln

ORIGINAL: HanBarca

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Can we get back to the very narrow question I posed?

How do you choose between Assault or Blitz? As the attacker? As the defender?

actually, the thread title is: "AI (general): location v. destruction of enemy", so I think you are the one off topic

Nope, on topic. You have to figure how to make the AI choose a combat table

[:D] But I changed the title for you just in case [:D]

I didn't know it was possible to change the thread titles. How did you do that?

[composer99]

To put it a bit more in terms of a rule with specific criteria:
 
The attacker should choose a blitz combat (almost) every time he is eligible to do so.
Exceptions:
- when the attacker does not have adequate casualties on hand (usually a motorized division)
 
The defender should choose an assault combat in general, when he is eligible to do so. The defender should instead choose a blitz if enough of the following are true (with "enough" being determined by context):
- the attacker has an expensive blitz unit (HQ-A, ARM, MECH) participating in the attack with no "covering" unit for a loss (motorized division, usually)
- the defender needs to preserve units more than he needs to keep the hex or cause the attacker to become disorganized
- there is no risk of a breakthrough move occuring if the attacker gets a "B" result
- the most likely outcome of the combat is a retreat, even with altered combat modifiers
- the hex being attacked is not (or is no longer) a key part of the front, or the defender has defences in depth behind the hex being attacked
Generally, if a majority of these conditions apply the defender should call a blitz combat.
 
I can't think of any other specific reasons why an attacker would want to call an assault when he could call a blitz; but that doesn't mean they don't exist. Also, any other reasons why a defender might want to call a blitz would be helpful if they exist.

[composer99]

HanBarca was commenting on the original postings of this thread, and in that context his post is legitimate.
 
However, thread topics shift over time, and as that has clearly taken place in this thread, the comment seemed out of place.
 
On the whole, no need for noses to get out of joint. [:)]

[fvianello]

ORIGINAL: Mziln
[:D] But I changed the title for you just in case [:D]

ahahah! outsmarted.

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
Sorry. I could have started a new thread for the question (probably should have) but I try not to start a new thread for every little thing, but instead put them with similar (usually broader) topics.

Don't worry, I'll sleep well anyway

[fvianello]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

As the attacker, I would choose Blitz everytime I can, because :
- Blitz are more easy at taking the hex than Assaults (result needed to take the hex is 16 in Blitz, and 20 in Assault).
- Blitz inflict less casualties to me than Assault.
- Blitz disrupt me less than Assault.

The only drawback of Blitz is that it directly kills the enemy less often than Assault. BUT, when the Assault kills the enemy, the Blitz retreat or Shatter them. An enemy retreated is an enemy disrupted, so it can be killed latter. Also, If a shattered (and retreated) enemy can't be killed later, it can be shattered instead. Also, when the assault table kills, at the same numbers the Blitz table Shatters (B) the enemy, which is as good as a kill sometimes.


As the defender, I'd choose Assault everytime I can, simply because it denies the Blitz benefits to the attacker. There are exceptions. I would choose the Blitz table sometimes time when I don't care of loosing ground and when I wish to save units, and the enemy only have low odds against me, so that the survivablity of my units is greater. China and Russia are two places where you will do that sometimes.

As a general rule, it makes sense. I think you could add a couple of exception like:
1. friend risk of losing high-value hex -> assault, after some calculation about % of success
2. friend cannot absorb losses and risk losing high value unit -> blitz
3. enemy cannot absorb losses and risk losing high value unit -> assault



[/quote]

[Ullern]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Here is a problem I am working on fleshing out the answer to. What I want to achieve is a written description of the process for determining which CRT to use. I have made a small start on this and I am interested in your opinions as to how you make this decision. Most of this writeup is for when attacking. What needs to be different if you are defending?

The 3 Re is the level of difficulty I assigned to writing this rule (3: where 1 - easy and 5 - very hard). Re denotes that the the AIO has to Respond when asked this question.

===========
8.33 Resolve land combat - choose table (see RAC 11.16) (3 Re)
Calculate the expected results for both tables (Assault and Blitz). Results are pessimistic, expected, and optimistic results. The extremes occur 10% or less of the time. These 10% and 90% thresholds can be modified whenever appropriate (e.g., to 20% and 60%).

When attacking, possible goals are:
(1) to empty a hex so we can occupy it,
(2) to achieve a breakthrough,
(3) to kill enemy units,
(4) to preserve our own units,
(5) to disorganize enemy units, or
(6) to not disorganize our own units.

If the mode of attack (see below) is to push the enemy back, then the choice is between 1 and 2. If the mode of attack is to kill enemy units, then the choice is between 3 and 4. If the mode of attack is to disorganize the enemy, then the choice is between 5 and 6.

When defending, ...


======================
Tactical mode
What the Field Marshal (FM) needs to determine is which of 4 modes of attack to use:
(1) Destroy enemy units this impulse,
(2) Disorganize enemy units this impulse so they can be destroyed in a later impulse (or turn),
(3) Maneuver so better attacks can be made in the future, or
(4) Push the enemy back.

Maneuvering can change supply status for friendly and enemy units, increase the number of hexes from which to attack an enemy hex, and improve the selection of hexes from which to attack. In situations where the enemy has the ability to counterattack, maneuvering can improve the FM’s resulting defensive line at the end of his impulse.

The calculation of estimated results provides the expected changes (for both sides) to the front line. This includes kills and disorganizations. In addition to combat results, units can also become disorganized because they were committed during the impulse (e.g., air units). And disorganized units might be reorganized. When the impulse is over, the FM makes a new assessment, ‘B’, for each front line., and compares it to ‘A’.

By extrapolating the change from A to B over the remaining impulses in the turn, the FM judges whether disorganization is a viable tactic for the current turn. It works if the enemy units are mostly disorganized with no reorganization capability left while the FM still has a viable, organized, attacking force.

Direct attacks to kill enemy units is usually the best tactic but it might cause too many friendly casualties or disorganizations. Or, if the FM limits attacks to only those with excellent odds, it might be too slow. Yet again, maneuvering is rarely fast and there might not be enough impulses in the turn to use the disorganization tactic. The FM must be willing to accept that none of the modes will work as well as he would like and simply go with half measures, or no attacks at all.

I think your suggestion is quite good Steve.
And I would want to keep all the possibilities you have suggested.
The other arguments presented so far I feel is very Axis oriented, and early game (pre Barbarossa) oriented. And there are better ways if you are Allied.

If you are genuinly out to take out as many units as possible, assult is better also as an attacker. Sure if you get Blitz bonuses and the choice is between +8 blitz or +4 assult the choice is easy. But in many cases you don't get Blitz bonuses and the choice is between a +4 Blitz and a +4 assult. It's quite a different matter.

With the Allies I am often able to get a production ratio of 2:1 on the Axis. With such production ratio I am happy to accept +6 assult in small size attacks (max two hexes attacking - if not too many units flips), which I did quite a few of in my latestet Campaign, which I won.

Example:
With attacker prefered losses beeing (in order): MOT division, MIL, INF
With defender losses beeing (in order): INF, INF.
The average +6 assult would be: attacker 2.3 BP loss, defender 3.3 BP loss
The average +6 Blitz would be: attacker 1.2 BP loss, defender 1.4 BP loss.
If I am having 2:1 production ratio, doubling the attrition in combat would increase my strategic tempo, so much that I would accept quite a lot of additionally flipped units for the increased attrition and increased loss ratio.
_ As a defender this is usually even worse than what I picture here, since there second defender loss is often a high value unit like a ARM, MECH or HQ.

Disorganizing units also becomes important when dealing with OOS units. Ground striking the units is not always the best choice. Even Germany with excelent ground strikers are sometimes so pressed for air missions that they should seek other choices.
A more common use for disorganize, may be for fast moving fronts. If the Russians are running, a disorganized Russian is a dead Russian. A simple R results can be very valuable.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: ullern

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Here is a problem I am working on fleshing out the answer to. What I want to achieve is a written description of the process for determining which CRT to use. I have made a small start on this and I am interested in your opinions as to how you make this decision. Most of this writeup is for when attacking. What needs to be different if you are defending?

The 3 Re is the level of difficulty I assigned to writing this rule (3: where 1 - easy and 5 - very hard). Re denotes that the the AIO has to Respond when asked this question.

===========
8.33 Resolve land combat - choose table (see RAC 11.16) (3 Re)
Calculate the expected results for both tables (Assault and Blitz). Results are pessimistic, expected, and optimistic results. The extremes occur 10% or less of the time. These 10% and 90% thresholds can be modified whenever appropriate (e.g., to 20% and 60%).

When attacking, possible goals are:
(1) to empty a hex so we can occupy it,
(2) to achieve a breakthrough,
(3) to kill enemy units,
(4) to preserve our own units,
(5) to disorganize enemy units, or
(6) to not disorganize our own units.

If the mode of attack (see below) is to push the enemy back, then the choice is between 1 and 2. If the mode of attack is to kill enemy units, then the choice is between 3 and 4. If the mode of attack is to disorganize the enemy, then the choice is between 5 and 6.

When defending, ...


======================
Tactical mode
What the Field Marshal (FM) needs to determine is which of 4 modes of attack to use:
(1) Destroy enemy units this impulse,
(2) Disorganize enemy units this impulse so they can be destroyed in a later impulse (or turn),
(3) Maneuver so better attacks can be made in the future, or
(4) Push the enemy back.

Maneuvering can change supply status for friendly and enemy units, increase the number of hexes from which to attack an enemy hex, and improve the selection of hexes from which to attack. In situations where the enemy has the ability to counterattack, maneuvering can improve the FM’s resulting defensive line at the end of his impulse.

The calculation of estimated results provides the expected changes (for both sides) to the front line. This includes kills and disorganizations. In addition to combat results, units can also become disorganized because they were committed during the impulse (e.g., air units). And disorganized units might be reorganized. When the impulse is over, the FM makes a new assessment, ‘B’, for each front line., and compares it to ‘A’.

By extrapolating the change from A to B over the remaining impulses in the turn, the FM judges whether disorganization is a viable tactic for the current turn. It works if the enemy units are mostly disorganized with no reorganization capability left while the FM still has a viable, organized, attacking force.

Direct attacks to kill enemy units is usually the best tactic but it might cause too many friendly casualties or disorganizations. Or, if the FM limits attacks to only those with excellent odds, it might be too slow. Yet again, maneuvering is rarely fast and there might not be enough impulses in the turn to use the disorganization tactic. The FM must be willing to accept that none of the modes will work as well as he would like and simply go with half measures, or no attacks at all.

I think your suggestion is quite good Steve.
And I would want to keep all the possibilities you have suggested.
The other arguments presented so far I feel is very Axis oriented, and early game (pre Barbarossa) oriented. And there are better ways if you are Allied.

If you are genuinly out to take out as many units as possible, assult is better also as an attacker. Sure if you get Blitz bonuses and the choice is between +8 blitz or +4 assult the choice is easy. But in many cases you don't get Blitz bonuses and the choice is between a +4 Blitz and a +4 assult. It's quite a different matter.

With the Allies I am often able to get a production ratio of 2:1 on the Axis. With such production ratio I am happy to accept +6 assult in small size attacks (max two hexes attacking - if not too many units flips), which I did quite a few of in my latestet Campaign, which I won.

Example:
With attacker prefered losses beeing (in order): MOT division, MIL, INF
With defender losses beeing (in order): INF, INF.
The average +6 assult would be: attacker 2.3 BP loss, defender 3.3 BP loss
The average +6 Blitz would be: attacker 1.2 BP loss, defender 1.4 BP loss.
If I am having 2:1 production ratio, doubling the attrition in combat would increase my strategic tempo, so much that I would accept quite a lot of additionally flipped units for the increased attrition and increased loss ratio.
_ As a defender this is usually even worse than what I picture here, since there second defender loss is often a high value unit like a ARM, MECH or HQ.

Disorganizing units also becomes important when dealing with OOS units. Ground striking the units is not always the best choice. Even Germany with excelent ground strikers are sometimes so pressed for air missions that they should seek other choices.
A more common use for disorganize, may be for fast moving fronts. If the Russians are running, a disorganized Russian is a dead Russian. A simple R results can be very valuable.

Thanks to everyone. I am still open to recomendations.

What might help the AIO decide, which no one really has the time to do over the board, is that the computer can work out precisely what the likely outcomes are going to be. It can converted probabily of die rolls into probable destroyed/retreated/disorganized/etc. results. That yields quantified likely results for choosing the Blitz versus the Assault CRT. This is similar to the BP losses you have calculated here.

[fvianello]

The alghoritm should work, but be careful with computer calculation based on the paradigm EVALUATE_HEX - CALCULATE_PROBABILITIES - TAKE_ACTION.

Almost every AI out there decide by taking a single, isolated problem, making some calcs and choosing a course of action.
Usually, the result is an AI that keeps sending troops trying to conquer the enemy capital and ignore completely the fact that it's going to be encircled, or that keeps sending out piecemeal units trying to conquer a position instead of waiting a couple of turns and then make a single, decisive attack.

Back to our Blitz vs Assault, what are you going to do, as Germany in '40, if France is practically falled and you have the chance to destroy some big, juicy UK land units there? An EVALUATE_HEX procedure would almost surely use blitz, but what you need there is assault.

And if you're in front of Cairo with your (only) 2 german units in africa, are you going to use assault, maybe losing 1 ?

What I'm suggesting is to build an AI with a more strategic view; as far as i know, only "railroaded" AI are able to do that (AI that choose among predetermined behavior, like "France40=Blitz1","Russia41=Blitz2" and so on)

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: HanBarca

The alghoritm should work, but be careful with computer calculation based on the paradigm EVALUATE_HEX - CALCULATE_PROBABILITIES - TAKE_ACTION.

Almost every AI out there decide by taking a single, isolated problem, making some calcs and choosing a course of action.
Usually, the result is an AI that keeps sending troops trying to conquer the enemy capital and ignore completely the fact that it's going to be encircled, or that keeps sending out piecemeal units trying to conquer a position instead of waiting a couple of turns and then make a single, decisive attack.

Back to our Blitz vs Assault, what are you going to do, as Germany in '40, if France is practically falled and you have the chance to destroy some big, juicy UK land units there? An EVALUATE_HEX procedure would almost surely use blitz, but what you need there is assault.

And if you're in front of Cairo with your (only) 2 german units in africa, are you going to use assault, maybe losing 1 ?

What I'm suggesting is to build an AI with a more strategic view; as far as i know, only "railroaded" AI are able to do that (AI that choose among predetermined behavior, like "France40=Blitz1","Russia41=Blitz2" and so on)

There are a lot of ways to merge the strategic priorities (e.g., disorganize enemy units) with the result probabilities.

One that I really dislike is weighted sums. In fact, I speak of them derogatorily as "mulitply and add", with the implication that they have no sensitivity.

I prefer thresholds: if A is really good, do that; if B is really bad, do not do that. I only use probabilities when the results fall somewhere in between. Even then, I try to work with non-linear systems to model the degree of sensitivity at the end points.

[Froonp]

I think your suggestion is quite good Steve.
And I would want to keep all the possibilities you have suggested.
The other arguments presented so far I feel is very Axis oriented, and early game (pre Barbarossa) oriented. And there are better ways if you are Allied.

If you are genuinly out to take out as many units as possible, assult is better also as an attacker. Sure if you get Blitz bonuses and the choice is between +8 blitz or +4 assult the choice is easy. But in many cases you don't get Blitz bonuses and the choice is between a +4 Blitz and a +4 assult. It's quite a different matter.

With the Allies I am often able to get a production ratio of 2:1 on the Axis. With such production ratio I am happy to accept +6 assult in small size attacks (max two hexes attacking - if not too many units flips), which I did quite a few of in my latestet Campaign, which I won.

I would give the production ratio and the BP losses ratio a lesser weight in the decision than the ability to take ground. Taking ground helps diminishing the enemy production anyway, so whether the ground was taken by destroying the enemy or by shattering it to the production circle is not always that important. On the Russian front to name it, shattering the Germans is as good as killing them, as they enter the map in Germany, far away from the frontline, and go back to the frontline peacemeal. If you are able to breaching the frontline after having shattered them, then you will kill a huge lot of Germans anyway.

So, I would take them into consideration (the production ratio and the BP losses ratio), but I would not base the decision on them.

There are very few occasions when you will prefer an assault as the attacker. You always try to obtain the use of the Blitz table.

[composer99]

Quick note on Germany attacking CW units in France in 1940 - as long as you hem the CW in such that it has no valid retreat path, the units will die no matter what type of combat you call (the BEF is on the beaches of Dunkirk, but this time the panzers keep rolling...), so you are still better off calling a blitz.

[peskpesk]

If we focues only on the attacker choice.

The default choose is Blitz, because:
- Blitz gives a higher chance of taking the hex than Assaults
- Blitz inflicts fewer casualties to attacker than Assault.
- Blitz disrupts the attacker less than Assault.
- Blitz gives a chance of a breakthrough.
- Defending units with no valid retreat path are killed.

Possible exceptions are:
- Not having adequate casualties on hand (usually a motorized division).
- Not having chance for mop up attacks (usually late in turn or risk of bad weather).
- Not wanting the defending units to escape (usually an expensive or key unit(s), ex Chinese HQ).
- Expendable unit attack (usually a low DRM attack with a expendable unit(s) on a expensive or key unit(s), ex as Italy in front of Cairo you made successful GS and flipped the juicy UK land units that also made them oos, risking 3-2 attack with your 3-3 against the two flipped black Mot’s).
- Attrition (a usually Japan vs China or an Allies late war strategy. Because the higher production ratio reduces importance of the BP losses ratio).

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: peskpesk

If we focues only on the attacker choice.

The default choose is Blitz, because:
- Blitz gives a higher chance of taking the hex than Assaults
- Blitz inflicts fewer casualties to attacker than Assault.
- Blitz disrupts the attacker less than Assault.
- Blitz gives a chance of a breakthrough.
- Defending units with no valid retreat path are killed.

Possible exceptions are:
- Not having adequate casualties on hand (usually a motorized division).
- Not having chance for mop up attacks (usually late in turn or risk of bad weather).
- Not wanting the defending units to escape (usually an expensive or key unit(s), ex Chinese HQ).
- Expendable unit attack (usually a low DRM attack with a expendable unit(s) on a expensive or key unit(s), ex as Italy in front of Cairo you made successful GS and flipped the juicy UK land units that also made them oos, risking 3-2 attack with your 3-3 against the two flipped black Mot’s).
- Attrition (a usually Japan vs China or an Allies late war strategy. Because the higher production ratio reduces importance of the BP losses ratio).

Excellent stuff! Thanks. Do you have suggestions for the defense? Or do I simply take the negative of the above?

I am going to try to find time to summarize all these comments on Assault vs Blitz today or tomorrow.