AI for MWiF-Italy

A forum for the discussion of the World in Flames AI Opponent.

Moderator: Shannon V. OKeets

Post Reply
User avatar
Froonp
Posts: 7998
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 8:23 pm
Location: Marseilles, France
Contact:

RE: AI for MWiF-Italy

Post by Froonp »

If Germany would be in supply and hold Rome at the end of the next year they could liberate Italy for a year.
Why for a year ?
If the Wallies take Rome back (from the Germans who liberated Italy), now Italy is conquered a second time, and this time this is a complete conquest whatever minor country they still control.

So, as the German, it would be very unwise to liberate Italy if you are not able to keep it untill the end of the game.
Also, if you take back Rome, and that you do not liberate Italy, I seem to remember that now the Italians no longer cooperate with you.

So taking Rome back as the Germans who just lost it to the Wallies is not something I'm willing to do.
User avatar
Mziln
Posts: 667
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2004 5:36 pm
Location: Tulsa Oklahoma

RE: AI for MWiF-Italy

Post by Mziln »

ORIGINAL: Froonp

(1) Why for a year?

(2) If the Wallies take Rome back (from the Germans who liberated Italy), now Italy is conquered a second time, and this time this is a complete conquest whatever minor country they still control.

So, as the German, it would be very unwise to liberate Italy if you are not able to keep it until the end of the game.

(3) Also, if you take back Rome, and that you do not liberate Italy; I seem to remember that now the Italians no longer cooperate with you.

So taking Rome back as the Germans who just lost it to the Wallies is not something I'm willing to do.

(1) Ok, My mistake. I thought you said (over a year ago in a previous thread) that conquest was a yearly thing. 13.7 Peace is the end of each turn.

(2) I thought earlier in the thread it was agreed Italy was to align Yugoslavia (Cbohem post #65) and Italy installing Vichy.

IMO it is very dangerous to let Italy install Vichy without aligning a minor country or to allow the USA to declare war on Italy separately.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
13.7.1 Conquest

Complete conquest

(2) When a major power or minor country no longer controls its own or any aligned home country, it has been completely conquered. Thereafter, it is at peace with everyone it was at war with.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Liberation effects

13.7.5 Liberation

Return half of the liberated country’s units not currently in the game (by type, rounding fractions up) to its force pools (except France’s if Vichy was installed). Liberated minors’ units join the force pools of their liberating major power.

A liberated major power or minor country gets back control of all hexes it controlled at the start of the 1939 campaign game that are now controlled by the liberating major power. Other major powers on its side can give back such territory that they control.

If you liberate the original home country of a conquered major power or minor country, it again becomes the home country for its units, replacing any alternative home country.

(3) A liberated major power can co-operate (see 18.) with any major power that returns all eligible territory to it. If they could return territory but don’t, they can never co-operate with the liberated major power.

For the remainder of the game, the liberating major power controls the liberated major power for all purposes.

Liberated minor countries are aligned, and may co-operate, with the liberating major power.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

User avatar
Froonp
Posts: 7998
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 8:23 pm
Location: Marseilles, France
Contact:

RE: AI for MWiF-Italy

Post by Froonp »

(1) Ok, My mistake. I thought you said (over a year ago in a previous thread) that conquest was a yearly thing. 13.7 Peace is the end of each turn.
Well, I do not remember that;sorry to have mislead you.
(2) I thought earlier in the thread it was agreed Italy was to align Yugoslavia (Cbohem post #65) and Italy installing Vichy.

IMO it is very dangerous to let Italy install Vichy without aligning a minor country or to allow the USA to declare war on Italy separately.

I for one, would advise warmly that Italy aligns Yugoslavia (this is a win-win situation for the German / Italian, well, especially for the Italians, much less for the Germans in reality), on the other hand, I would not reccommend Italy making Vichy.
trees
Posts: 175
Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 7:30 pm
Contact:

RE: AI for MWiF-Italy

Post by trees »

If you've never seen an active Vichy.... why not have Italy install it? I've always wanted to try it but haven't gotten around to such an 'experimental' move, that will probably have to wait for a game of MWiF. I am having great fun with an active Vichy in a game right now (The CW went to war with them to get in to Morroco and try to re-develop land bases in the Med; Algeria and Tunisia already belong to Italy and naturally trench warfare has set in on the Algerian border). Vichy can't activate a sea zone, but they can certainly hang out and play naval defense on occasion. Russia shut down the 1941 Barbarossa leaving the Germans with little to do but persecute CW CP's, so they can afford Naval impulses. WiF is great fun with gamey situations like a Japanese convoy chain safely bringing home to Vichy the Senegal resource while the Vichy CP haul ore for Italy and keep the Med in supply. It's also fun that Vichy ships from their worldwide bases (in supply through Suez) generate Presence of Enemy for the Axis, it's kind of like a bunch of Soviet 'fishing trawlers' dogging the Allies everywhere. I have Vichy all set to have fun with the rule that they can't enter Axis hexes, but there doesn't seem to be any prohibition against invading Allied hexes, especially those taken from Vichy France.... Too bad the fun is about to end as the summer of 42 approaches and the Germans will be lucky to even get their SUB reinforcements out into the Atlantic. I wish I had had Italy install Vichy in this game.
plant trees
Incy
Posts: 336
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 4:12 am

RE: AI for MWiF-Italy

Post by Incy »

ORIGINAL: Froonp
If Germany would be in supply and hold Rome at the end of the next year they could liberate Italy for a year.
Why for a year ?
If the Wallies take Rome back (from the Germans who liberated Italy), now Italy is conquered a second time, and this time this is a complete conquest whatever minor country they still control.

So, as the German, it would be very unwise to liberate Italy if you are not able to keep it untill the end of the game.
Also, if you take back Rome, and that you do not liberate Italy, I seem to remember that now the Italians no longer cooperate with you.

So taking Rome back as the Germans who just lost it to the Wallies is not something I'm willing to do.

I don't really see the big downside from having Italy install Vichy.
-you have to send one italian corps to France prior to Vichification
-You can't send germans into Vichy groups that are attacked, only Italians (but foreign troop comittment is still in effect, so there's a limit to how many german HQs can be sent into say north africa anyways) But hey, now you can even base ships/TRS there, which may speed up the defence!!
- If metropolean Vichy france is invaded, only italians can help out (germans still cant enter).
-If VF is collapsed before Italy is completely conquered, old Vichy france hexes may become allied controlled, because they are italian controlled and not german controlled
-saved BP/oil will go to Italy (but can be relent to germany next turn)
+Vicy gets to share Italian action limits (and yes, if Vichy is active, Vichy ships can fight and activate! Vichy BP can often repair damaged ships "for free", if you're out of storage space for BP)

Vichy is "run by" and not "controlled by" Italy, so it doesn't prevent complete conquest of Italy, but it also doesn't get conquered if Italy gets conquered (even completely). (What happens if Italy is completely conquered before Vichy collapse is not defined in RAW..)
Naval units on spiral go to the power collapsing Vichy, which can still be germany.

Did I miss anything?
trees
Posts: 175
Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 7:30 pm
Contact:

RE: AI for MWiF-Italy

Post by trees »

probably only the possiblity of a bored WiF player trying to break Steve's carefully coded code by asking for Japan to install Vichy.

[I forgot that in rule 17 Vichy their navy is less restricted and perhaps should be weighed more heavily in Allied decision making.]
plant trees
User avatar
Mziln
Posts: 667
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2004 5:36 pm
Location: Tulsa Oklahoma

RE: AI for MWiF-Italy

Post by Mziln »

It’s not what happens to Vichy. It’s what happens to Occupied France and then Vichy.

Occupied France would be a conquered major power home country controlled by Italy.
Vichy France would be a neutral major power run by Italy.

petracelli
Posts: 106
Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2003 4:34 am
Location: Herts UK

RE: AI for MWiF-Italy

Post by petracelli »

Have been reading through suggested strategy and building and would just like to add some thoughts.

Italy to be able to survive especially if the Allies are going to come after her first if the med is not closed needs Nav and Ftr's to survive. It is all vey well saying it should commit a large number of air untis to Russia but if the Allies have Gib then you can expect Sardina to be under threat very early indeed.

To able to avoid this situation then Italy needs' to build Nav and it needs them sooner rather than later closley follwed by Ftr's.

If the Germans have gone for a 41 Barb they should be requesting the long range FW 190's to protect the Med sea zones.

If Germany goes after Gib then all the Nav come sin very useful in clearing the Brits out of Cape St Vincent and then the Bay.

With Gib in Axis hands Italy can then turn it's little eyes on the middle east and looking to align Iraq, far more likely than Turkey.

As for DOWing at the start an early entry exposes your fleet but is conuteracted by allowing Germanty to send you much needed resources. Is very hard to programme as depends entirley on risk and reward, not forgetting USE entry chits. As always best to be aggressive in 1940 when the average is at it's lowest.

Once the Allies have Gib back then it's time to defend Sardina and Malta if you have it and to have pletny of Ftr' and Nav to contest the Italian coast.

regards

Phil
User avatar
Froonp
Posts: 7998
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 8:23 pm
Location: Marseilles, France
Contact:

RE: AI for MWiF-Italy

Post by Froonp »

ORIGINAL: petracelli

Have been reading through suggested strategy and building and would just like to add some thoughts.

Italy to be able to survive especially if the Allies are going to come after her first if the med is not closed needs Nav and Ftr's to survive. It is all vey well saying it should commit a large number of air untis to Russia but if the Allies have Gib then you can expect Sardina to be under threat very early indeed.

To able to avoid this situation then Italy needs' to build Nav and it needs them sooner rather than later closley follwed by Ftr's.
Completely true.
If the Germans have gone for a 41 Barb they should be requesting the long range FW 190's to protect the Med sea zones.

If Germany goes after Gib then all the Nav come sin very useful in clearing the Brits out of Cape St Vincent and then the Bay.

With Gib in Axis hands Italy can then turn it's little eyes on the middle east and looking to align Iraq, far more likely than Turkey.
Completely true too.
That's the point I'was defending in previous posts when I said that Italy can have its own objectives, and not only be the puppet of Germany.
As for DOWing at the start an early entry exposes your fleet but is conuteracted by allowing Germanty to send you much needed resources. Is very hard to programme as depends entirley on risk and reward, not forgetting USE entry chits. As always best to be aggressive in 1940 when the average is at it's lowest.

Once the Allies have Gib back then it's time to defend Sardina and Malta if you have it and to have pletny of Ftr' and Nav to contest the Italian coast.

regards

Phil
hakon
Posts: 298
Joined: Fri Apr 15, 2005 12:55 pm

RE: AI for MWiF-Italy

Post by hakon »

ORIGINAL: petracelli

Italy to be able to survive especially if the Allies are going to come after her first if the med is not closed needs Nav and Ftr's to survive. It is all vey well saying it should commit a large number of air untis to Russia but if the Allies have Gib then you can expect Sardina to be under threat very early indeed.

True. The UK can often take Sardinia as early as 41 (or even 40) in this scenario. If you follow my strategy above, it is important to retrieve the 4 corps + art that you start with in africa. Combine that with a few german mil/garr, and you should be abe to garrison italy sufficiently to stay unconquered until the USA joins the war, at least, and even prevent british landings in the Italian home land. Make sure that every likely landing place is within range of either the mech or Graziani, so that any landing force can be blitzed back to sea at once.

To able to avoid this situation then Italy needs' to build Nav and it needs them sooner rather than later closley follwed by Ftr's.

If the Germans have gone for a 41 Barb they should be requesting the long range FW 190's to protect the Med sea zones.

I agree that having navs is the best way to keep italy alive. I disagree on the 190's though, and also on the timing. In my opinion, 1942 is the right time to attempt air superiority in the Med, or at least force the allies to stay in the 0 box. My favourite is to use any italian fighters that go into the 2 box (ie that have 4+ range), combined with short ranged navs, blue stukas, etc. You will still find on a 4 if you have a nav and the enemy uses a convoy point to keep sardinia in supply. Should you manage to cut supply to Sardinia, you may be in a position to retake the island. (I did this once, killing Alexander, a Mar, a Para and a couple of flipped aircraft in the process.).

If Germany goes after Gib then all the Nav come sin very useful in clearing the Brits out of Cape St Vincent and then the Bay.

With Gib in Axis hands Italy can then turn it's little eyes on the middle east and looking to align Iraq, far more likely than Turkey.

Turkey is really not that hard, if you crush the USSR :) After Turkey, you control the iraqi oil, anyway, at least until 44 or something. Going for Gib is a valid strategy, just not part of the all out Barbarossa strat.
As for DOWing at the start an early entry exposes your fleet but is conuteracted by allowing Germanty to send you much needed resources. Is very hard to programme as depends entirley on risk and reward, not forgetting USE entry chits. As always best to be aggressive in 1940 when the average is at it's lowest.

Dow'ing in early 40 suits me best. Italy does need the LL, but it is also nice to have time to extract the african forces before dowing. Since Italy doesnt really need her fleet in my strategy, I also want the allies to dow me, especially in 39/early 40 when their chits are high. I am willing to loose quite a chunk of the italian navy if I can delay US entry by a turn or two.

One final point that I would like to stress: IF Italy should go for an agressive med strat, I think the goal of it should always be to close the med by taking Gibraltar and suez. Spending any significant amount of production on a fleet without securing the home land, leads to a very weak italy indeed. The times that I have seen Italy fall in 1942, have typically been after Italy has spread out too thinly, allowing easy allied invasions.

Conversely, when NOT going after Gibraltar, I think Italy is best off just Turteling in, keeping all their ground forces at home, and just going for naval denial usinga a fleet-in-beeing strategy, combined with a massive naval air threat able to reach low boxes in the italian cost and western med, along with some naval air able to reach a somewhat higher box in the eastern med. The naval air does not need to be there until 1942, as mentioned above, as land forces should be more than enough in 1941. This creates a potential for a crushing number of axis aircraft on the eastern front in the summer of 1941, with enough italian fighters remaining there to secure air superiority throughout 1942. If the USSR collapses, or at the very least is preassured enough to be stopped from building fighters, air superiority in the med in 1942 and 1943 is a real possibility, even while barbarossa continues in strength.
Incy
Posts: 336
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 4:12 am

RE: AI for MWiF-Italy

Post by Incy »


This all sounds like sound italian strategy to me.

If there's something missing it must be the importance of establishing a safe aligned minor as a second home country. The best country would be Yoguslavia, wich has good defensive terrain, and a good map location. The best way to do this is to achieve naval dominance in east med in '41, and then invade greece (plus attack through the air/Bulgaria). If CW lets down the guard to allow an earlier conquest of greece, all the better, but this requires CW to have mispositioned/lost TRS. If a med strategy is pursued, don't mess with greece until the med is effectively closed (or so unsafe that CW won't risk to interfer).

Personally I don't agree that an incompletely conquered Italy is of little value. Italy can still call land, naval and especially air, and the extra action limits can be of immense value to the axis.

For this reason I prefer to not try to maintain garission vs. the allies (at least not after the US enters the fray), but rather defend Italy with germans land units, plus strong naval air power. I do fight hard for Rome and the factories, and even for Tripoli! (which people give away to easy!!)
I tend not to take italian land actions, I prefer instead to use use the Italians land units where they mostly don't have to move, i.e. as coastal garrissions (but outside Italy). I concentrate the Italians in one area, to minimize coperation issues and allow a shift to land actions to respond to invasions in/near the italian zone of operation (which is usually west France or Denmark+Benelux) The Italians of course need to be backed by a strong nearby german force in case there is serious trouble.

I like to enter the italians in the war early, and to have germany spend massively on LL to Italy. This allows for both a strong naval domination airforce, a strong sub force, and by the time of Barbarossa, a sigificant airforce that can deploy east. Italian air is much better than german air (maybe except the stukas) because it has action limits to rebase forward with german land units. If there are even remotely interesting italian air units in the pools, they should be built instead of/before german air units!

By having 100% german land units defend Italy, the defence gets better and more mobile, both FTR cover and land units can be shiftet at the same time, and there are always real forces nearby. German O'chits/HQs can be used for counterattacks earlier, before bridgeheads get to large. A mixed Italian-german airforce can choose to either try to dominate the land OR to dominate the sea, which gives the allies a hard time covering both (especially when staying in high boxes to invade).

If conquest does happen, almost all of the italians stay alive and fight on, which preserves the critical airforce!! (which can still do air actions). The all-german defence of italy also means there will be less gaps in the defence line due to Italian "defectors". To often have I seen crack german troops hoplessly lost far behind enemy lines after a failed attempt of holding the south (while the italians hang out in the north and get killed by conquest)


ORIGINAL: petracelli

Have been reading through suggested strategy and building and would just like to add some thoughts.

Italy to be able to survive especially if the Allies are going to come after her first if the med is not closed needs Nav and Ftr's to survive. It is all vey well saying it should commit a large number of air untis to Russia but if the Allies have Gib then you can expect Sardina to be under threat very early indeed.

To able to avoid this situation then Italy needs' to build Nav and it needs them sooner rather than later closley follwed by Ftr's.

If the Germans have gone for a 41 Barb they should be requesting the long range FW 190's to protect the Med sea zones.

If Germany goes after Gib then all the Nav come sin very useful in clearing the Brits out of Cape St Vincent and then the Bay.

With Gib in Axis hands Italy can then turn it's little eyes on the middle east and looking to align Iraq, far more likely than Turkey.

As for DOWing at the start an early entry exposes your fleet but is conuteracted by allowing Germanty to send you much needed resources. Is very hard to programme as depends entirley on risk and reward, not forgetting USE entry chits. As always best to be aggressive in 1940 when the average is at it's lowest.

Once the Allies have Gib back then it's time to defend Sardina and Malta if you have it and to have pletny of Ftr' and Nav to contest the Italian coast.

regards

Phil
User avatar
Mziln
Posts: 667
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2004 5:36 pm
Location: Tulsa Oklahoma

RE: AI for MWiF-Italy

Post by Mziln »

Countries Italy can align: Persia, Iraq, and Yugoslavia.
User avatar
Froonp
Posts: 7998
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 8:23 pm
Location: Marseilles, France
Contact:

RE: AI for MWiF-Italy

Post by Froonp »

By having 100% german land units defend Italy, the defence gets better and more mobile, both FTR cover and land units can be shiftet at the same time, and there are always real forces nearby. German O'chits/HQs can be used for counterattacks earlier, before bridgeheads get to large. A mixed Italian-german airforce can choose to either try to dominate the land OR to dominate the sea, which gives the allies a hard time covering both (especially when staying in high boxes to invade).

If conquest does happen, almost all of the italians stay alive and fight on, which preserves the critical airforce!! (which can still do air actions). The all-german defence of italy also means there will be less gaps in the defence line due to Italian "defectors". To often have I seen crack german troops hoplessly lost far behind enemy lines after a failed attempt of holding the south (while the italians hang out in the north and get killed by conquest)
100% German land unit defending Italy ????
I think this is very bad for Italy, as only Italian units count for garrison ration, so Italy will be conquered as soon as Sicily falls.

For me, this is a typical German abuse. The German player doesn't care of the Italian being conquered, if he can keep the little pale green cannon fodder units for him. But the Italian one cares, because now he has lost the game. I'll keep on saying that the Italian country should be played by an independent player, with a devoted ai that aims at achieving an Axis victory, through an Italian victory.

This said, I agree that German units should come strongly in Italy to help defend Italy, and that there should be 2 defend zones in Italy : South of Florence, and North of Florence. South, the Italians must prevail, and north, the Germans must prevail. Indeed, idealy the north should never fall to the allies, and in last resort, the Alps and Trieste should stay a stop gap to the allies advance from the south. The longer the Allies will take to realize that an advance through the south is impossible, the longer they will shif forces elswhere, and these are valuable impulses and turns gained in front of the Wallies steamroller. But this advance beyond the Florence's mountains must really be impossible, or really try to be.
Incy
Posts: 336
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 4:12 am

RE: AI for MWiF-Italy

Post by Incy »


I just happen to think the garrission is to dangerous, with to small a chance of success. Kind of like Stalin stuffing the border prior to Barbarossa :)
Garission is just 1 of 4 surrender conditions. I prefer to instead fight for Tripoli and to defend and fight for Rome and the factories as well as I can. I do have italian air in Italy, so I do have some garission. But after the allies are ashore heavily (i.e. in Sicily), I don't try to maintain garission anymore.
But on the other hand, no italians means more germans, and more germans means a stronger defence of what in my opinion matters the most, Rome and the Factories. No Rome/Factories, no italian surrender!!!

I don't agree that this is german abuse of Italy, it's just sound play.
As San Tsu wrote, better to deter your enemy from attacking than fighting and winning (or fighting and loosing..)
You should not disregard that a strong defence of Italy coupled with a much smaller benefit from a conquest means the allies are much less likely to go for Italian conquest early.

ORIGINAL: Froonp
By having 100% german land units defend Italy, the defence gets better and more mobile, both FTR cover and land units can be shiftet at the same time, and there are always real forces nearby. German O'chits/HQs can be used for counterattacks earlier, before bridgeheads get to large. A mixed Italian-german airforce can choose to either try to dominate the land OR to dominate the sea, which gives the allies a hard time covering both (especially when staying in high boxes to invade).

If conquest does happen, almost all of the italians stay alive and fight on, which preserves the critical airforce!! (which can still do air actions). The all-german defence of italy also means there will be less gaps in the defence line due to Italian "defectors". To often have I seen crack german troops hoplessly lost far behind enemy lines after a failed attempt of holding the south (while the italians hang out in the north and get killed by conquest)
100% German land unit defending Italy ????
I think this is very bad for Italy, as only Italian units count for garrison ration, so Italy will be conquered as soon as Sicily falls.

For me, this is a typical German abuse. The German player doesn't care of the Italian being conquered, if he can keep the little pale green cannon fodder units for him. But the Italian one cares, because now he has lost the game. I'll keep on saying that the Italian country should be played by an independent player, with a devoted ai that aims at achieving an Axis victory, through an Italian victory.

This said, I agree that German units should come strongly in Italy to help defend Italy, and that there should be 2 defend zones in Italy : South of Florence, and North of Florence. South, the Italians must prevail, and north, the Germans must prevail. Indeed, idealy the north should never fall to the allies, and in last resort, the Alps and Trieste should stay a stop gap to the allies advance from the south. The longer the Allies will take to realize that an advance through the south is impossible, the longer they will shif forces elswhere, and these are valuable impulses and turns gained in front of the Wallies steamroller. But this advance beyond the Florence's mountains must really be impossible, or really try to be.
trees
Posts: 175
Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 7:30 pm
Contact:

RE: AI for MWiF-Italy

Post by trees »

I think the idea of independent Italian strategy, in a face-to-face game, obviously depends on if it is a two-player or three-player Axis team. Since the AI will be singular I think it should maximize cooperation for the benefit of the Axis and forget country specific goals. The Axis have a tough row to hoe and a sentimental independent Italy won't gain them anything.

The All-German defense of Italy, me likey and might try, though probably with such goodies as Italian Engineers left in Italy and some Italian Army in the Alps near the borders. Once the Allies get through struggling with serious 7-factor INF, GARR, and MECH/ARM corps Italy becomes sort of an Axis uber-minor and Luftwaffe assisstant for at least another year. Nice idea.

The Russian stuff border options will need it's own thread or should be a big part of the Russian AI thread. If you do the math it soon becomes clear that a 1941 Barbarossa is a Russian choice to make. If Germany builds very many U-Boats, more than 2 BP airplanes, or other inefficient Garrison Point units like Engineers, they quickly fall behind a Russian build plan dedicated to stuffing the border, i.e. no fancy units for Persia nor Persian campaign and garrison, and the initial defense of Siberia left to the 'RES'erve units. If Germany sends much of anything to the Med (either units or Resources/BPs; serious implications for Italy here) they also fall behind; ditto for strong Partisan/U-boat base garrisons in the West. If the Germans go for 'No Bessarabia' and DoW Yugoslavia and activate Rumania on impluse 3 it is ridiculously easy to stuff the border from inside Mother Russia. It scares people that have never tried it (and is pretty boring) and the fall of 1941 can be a little dicey but General Mud/Winter will most likely ride to the rescue. But if the Germans are not prepared for it and their war machine spins it's wheels sitting in Poland in 1941....an unmolested Allied build-up will come back to haunt them. The resulting 1942 Barbarossa can be ferocious still but a lot depends on if the Axis accomplished anything of worth in 1941.
plant trees
User avatar
Froonp
Posts: 7998
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 8:23 pm
Location: Marseilles, France
Contact:

RE: AI for MWiF-Italy

Post by Froonp »

I think the idea of independent Italian strategy, in a face-to-face game, obviously depends on if it is a two-player or three-player Axis team. Since the AI will be singular I think it should maximize cooperation for the benefit of the Axis and forget country specific goals. The Axis have a tough row to hoe and a sentimental independent Italy won't gain them anything.
I disagree.
First, I think that AI won't be singular, and that each major power will have its own.
Second, if you look at 24.1.2 where ADG shows the recommended player groupings, you never find Germany and Italy played by the same player, except in 3 players games where you have one player playing the whole Axis, and 2 players playing the Allies & Russia. Except 3 players games, all other grouping have Germany & Italy separated. For me its no wonder why.

I agree that the Axis have a tough play, but I am saying that Italy must cooperate and still follow its own objectives. Italy must aim at making the Axis win, through an Italian victory, I know I already wrote it, but no one seem to think this is possible, and I think it is. Everyone sees the thing through the German eyes, and want the Italians sacrifice themselves to help the Germans to win, while it is entirely possible for Italy to play in a such a way that it will be the winning Axis power.

It is exactly the same problem with CW / USA grouping, they both need to cooperate closely, but they need to have their own objectives and own will to win.
trees
Posts: 175
Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 7:30 pm
Contact:

RE: AI for MWiF-Italy

Post by trees »

I think the only way Italy can win by itself is if the Allies choose to leave them for last, or if the Axis succeed in breaking the CW or Russia and Italy has a craftier bid than the Germans. Allied choices control Italy's fate more than Italian choices. Barring a closed Med and an Allied strategy selecting not to re-open it, the Allies can knock out Italy in any game they want so playing for what Italy can hold in 1945 seems questionable to me. The AI will be playing the entire euro-Axis at least, I would think (I know Steve is considering making Human-AI teams a possibility but I wonder how many people will want to team up with a player you can't communicate in complete sentences with, and how much additional work such interface coding would be). To make the europe-AI schizophrenic will make it easier to defeat. Italy's overriding desire would naturally be to take Gibraltar in every single game if you were to look at it from Italy's viewpoint only. This might not fit in with Axis grand strategy as a whole and if Italy is off working on it's independently evaluated goals the human Allied opponent will gain advantage from this. Asking Italy to take one for the team and subordinate it's interests to Axis interests makes for a stronger Axis. The strategies under discussion here are 'game' strategies to win this game and would obviously go against Italian national interests in a real war, but we are kibbitzing about how to win a game. I think what you are asking for Patrice is somewhat like asking for an 'historical' option for the AI which is something I would like as well; that AI would be weaker but still enjoyable to play against.
plant trees
User avatar
Froonp
Posts: 7998
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 8:23 pm
Location: Marseilles, France
Contact:

RE: AI for MWiF-Italy

Post by Froonp »

ORIGINAL: trees

I think the only way Italy can win by itself is if the Allies choose to leave them for last, or if the Axis succeed in breaking the CW or Russia and Italy has a craftier bid than the Germans. Allied choices control Italy's fate more than Italian choices. Barring a closed Med and an Allied strategy selecting not to re-open it, the Allies can knock out Italy in any game they want so playing for what Italy can hold in 1945 seems questionable to me.
I do not agree with that. Italy can win if Italy prepares for that and play soundly, and manage to get as much German help as the German can muster. Even in an historic oriented game.
I've got 2 personals examples of games where I played Italy & Japan, and I won both times, and each time the Allies tried to conquer Italy first. The first time, they got discouraged by Italy defenses, and diverted their attack on southern France, which was a fatal error because the time lost in the way lost their game, and next time, they invaded Italy, and conquered it incompletely, and Germany had closed the way north, so this led them nowhere. Italy, still in the game as an incompletely conquered major power had enough victory cities to make it. Each time there was a strong cooperation between Germany & Italy, with strong German lend least (kind of 6 RP + 2 OIL a turn at the very best).
The AI will be playing the entire euro-Axis at least, I would think (I know Steve is considering making Human-AI teams a possibility but I wonder how many people will want to team up with a player you can't communicate in complete sentences with, and how much additional work such interface coding would be). To make the europe-AI schizophrenic will make it easier to defeat. Italy's overriding desire would naturally be to take Gibraltar in every single game if you were to look at it from Italy's viewpoint only.
I do not agree that Italy should ask for a Gibraltar strategy eveytime. Italy should bow to the general strategy chosen by Germany, but Italy can take its own gains from each strategy chosen by Germany, and it should take them, and not let the German take the for him, and not use his units to fulfill German's needs.

My point, is not that Italy must be independent, and not help Germany, my point is that Italy must have its own goals, and pursue them, and not be the puppet of Germany.
This might not fit in with Axis grand strategy as a whole and if Italy is off working on it's independently evaluated goals the human Allied opponent will gain advantage from this. Asking Italy to take one for the team and subordinate it's interests to Axis interests makes for a stronger Axis. The strategies under discussion here are 'game' strategies to win this game and would obviously go against Italian national interests in a real war, but we are kibbitzing about how to win a game. I think what you are asking for Patrice is somewhat like asking for an 'historical' option for the AI which is something I would like as well; that AI would be weaker but still enjoyable to play against.
That's not what I ask, even if I think this would be a good feature, from a game point of view.
I ask that Italy thinks for itself.
For example, I've seen 2 games where the Euroaxis closed the Med, and where all NAV losses where Italians, all land losses were Italians, and when it came down to take the Objective cities (in Egypt & Palestine), the German had a DIV amongst the Italian army to take them in front of them. The German player was effectively moving all the Italians counters (he had talked the Italian / Japan player to accept this), and he never cared about Italy making any goal. He only wanted to accumulate the most German Victory cities. I hate that, and I would hate an AI that maximize one major Power versus another. Each one must have his own goals.
User avatar
Froonp
Posts: 7998
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 8:23 pm
Location: Marseilles, France
Contact:

RE: AI for MWiF-Italy

Post by Froonp »

Thinking for itself :

For example :

If the German is for a Barb 41, I'll tell him : OK, I'll send you Balbo along with 3-4 planes to help you disrupt the Russians, and also a couple of land units, preferably MTN for winter attacks. I'll also rail move as many land units as I can in France or elswhere to provide garrison, even an HQ if needed, but when Italy get threatened, I might return some of them in Italy. And that's all. In exchange, I want the first and second Fw190 on the map to go in the Med to achieve air superiority in the Med, and all NAV & Me110 that you don't use. I also want (and the German would want this too) that Germany defends the north of Florence, so that it stay axis controlled when Italy falls. I'd also talk the German into letting me align Yugoslavia. I'll also ask for as much lend lease as he can spare, and I'll send him as many units I do not use to defend Italy, until Italy gets under pressure, and then, I'll delay the Allies as much as I can.

But no way that I'll have all the Italian army in Russia, replaced by Germans in Italy. No way I would accept to let Italy get conquered easily, to allow Germany to use my army in Russia. A conquered Italy looses its force pool, looses its repair & construction ships, and looses it's production, and loose at least half the units lost in combat (not re buildable). As the Italian player, and the German player too, I refuse that Italy don't produce. Italy can produce at 15-20 BP in 42-43, and it would be a shame to let this go.


If the German is for a Gib 41, I'll build accordingly, AMPH, ATR, PARA & MAR if possible, and I'll help him as much as I can, tranporting any units he wants anywhere, assaulting where he wants, but, thereafter for example, I'll ask to harvest the victory cities & oil of Middle East. I'll even lend OIL to the German if I achieve this, but I'll not let the German harvest all for himself. I'll use the Italian navy to attack the CW convoys, but not to the exclusion of using it to conquer lands that can give me something. Why not aim at taking Aden and then why not aim at India ? And why not South Africa ? Each of those lands can give me Objective cities, and moreover, taken them can make the Allies consider me in these places, and weaken his return to Gibraltar.

Well, these are just examples to let you understand that I agree for cooperation, I even agree that Germany decides on the broad strategic objectives, and that Italy & Japan have to bow to them, but I disagree on sacrificing Italy to fulfilling Germany's ends.
trees
Posts: 175
Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 7:30 pm
Contact:

RE: AI for MWiF-Italy

Post by trees »

That's what we need to discuss, actual examples, not generalities. Most of your examples are very good Axis play. Without examples we are just talking past each other. I think large-scale Italian participation in a 41 'Barb can come at the cost of an earlier Battle for Italy, but is a viable Axis strategy.

I think the Middle East is a bigger key to the game than many people think, and I think Italy and the Euro-Axis should try to go there starting before Gibraltar falls and definitely after. But if the Axis can take Gib and Iraq and southern Persia, then Italy after that should help with the ongoing Russian campaign and the defense of conquered Europe. Further adventurism in the direction of India or South Africa will only be met by cheap CW Infantry units for little Axis gain; though it's fun in a multi-player Axis game that the Axis is already on its way to winning. Taking Aden will definitely somewhat help defend the Suez back-door to the Med but only somewhat, Bombay is as good a base for the CW; Aden should be very difficult to take against good CW play, which one should assume. Italians heading towards India or South Africa gain nothing, they probably can't conquer them nor hurt the Allies very much there, unless Japan is roaring over that way and we're off into hypothetical territory of playing past the Allied 'tipping point'.

Letting German divisions take objective hexes is a Japanese/Italian player's fault and a famous part of multi-player gaming in general but is not as relevant to AI strategy.

I think the previous examples of strategies to maximize the usefulness of Italy that Patrice objected to are applicable to perhaps more common games where the Allies didn't lose Gibraltar and the Italians are doomed anyway, and are only strategies affecting the last few turns of Italian existence. What people were suggesting were ways for the Axis to make the best of an inevitable situation. The Axis might be able to gain more benefit by gaming the Italian conquest rules rather than fight to the last Italian with the weaker Italian units. Italy will probably last longer with tough German corps in the critical areas (Rome, Naples, the boot-heel; the more the merrier) and the Germans would probably need something from Italy somewhere else (northern Europe, Russia) to help cover such a commitment.

plant trees
Post Reply

Return to “AI Opponent Discussion”