AI (general): location v. destruction of enemy

[wfzimmerman]

A general comment about all the AI threads and discussion so far. Everything seems to be focused on "location, location, location". What ever happened to the military principle that the goal is to destroy the enemy's forces? Shouldn't the AI be looking primarily for vulnerable concentrations of enemy forces? and have its priorities set by which forces are the most important to destroy?

I realize that the AI design is doing some prioritizing based on unit type, but the overall impression I have is that everyone posting here seems to have an overwhelming focus on taking locations as opposed to destroying enemy forces wherever they may be. Once you destroy the enemy's army, it's easy to get objective hexes...

Am I imagining things, or is this a real issue in WIF play?

Fred

[Klingon]

The goal of military operations is to bring a rapid and successful conclusion to the war, not to destroy the enemy's forces; Sun Tzu understood this very well. Granted, you can win the war by destroying the opponent's forces, but this is a very sloppy way to do it. Achieving objectives is usually more important than destroying forces.

Code: Select all

 III. ATTACK BY STRATAGEM
 
 1. Sun Tzu said: In the practical art of war, the best thing of allis to take the enemy's 
 country whole and intact; to shatter anddestroy it is not so good. So, too, it is better to
  recapture anarmy entire than to destroy it, to capture a regiment, a detachment or a 
 company entire than to destroy them.
 
 2. Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supremeexcellence; supreme 
 excellence consists in breaking the enemy'sresistance without fighting.
 
 3. Thus the highest form of generalship is to balk the enemy'splans; the next best is to 
 prevent the junction of the enemy'sforces; the next in order is to attack the enemy's army
  in thefield; and the worst policy of all is to besiege walledcities.
 
 4. The rule is, not to besiege walled cities if it can possibly beavoided. The preparation
  of mantlets, movable shelters, and variousimplements of war, will take up three whole 
 months; and the pilingup of mounds over against the walls will take three monthsmore.

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/17405/17 ... 7405-h.htm

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: wfzimmerman
A general comment about all the AI threads and discussion so far. Everything seems to be focused on "location, location, location". What ever happened to the military principle that the goal is to destroy the enemy's forces? Shouldn't the AI be looking primarily for vulnerable concentrations of enemy forces? and have its priorities set by which forces are the most important to destroy?

I realize that the AI design is doing some prioritizing based on unit type, but the overall impression I have is that everyone posting here seems to have an overwhelming focus on taking locations as opposed to destroying enemy forces wherever they may be. Once you destroy the enemy's army, it's easy to get objective hexes...

Am I imagining things, or is this a real issue in WIF play?

Fred

Conquering countries removes the country's forces from the map (for the most part). Victory cities have strategic importance in that they influence the operational and tactical choices available to a player. If you hold Gibraltar and Suez, then the enemy can not enter/exit the Med. While that doesn't destroy the enemy navy, it certainly reduces its ability to annoy you.

A common tactic is to leave a few units behind as treats for the enemy to destroy. That gains you time to repair a breach in your line, bring up reinforcements, and build more units.

Gaining a material advantage in chess by eliminating enemy pieces is THE standard way to win. But care must be taken to stay focused on the prize - taking the enemy king.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: wfzimmerman
A general comment about all the AI threads and discussion so far. Everything seems to be focused on "location, location, location". What ever happened to the military principle that the goal is to destroy the enemy's forces? Shouldn't the AI be looking primarily for vulnerable concentrations of enemy forces? and have its priorities set by which forces are the most important to destroy?

I realize that the AI design is doing some prioritizing based on unit type, but the overall impression I have is that everyone posting here seems to have an overwhelming focus on taking locations as opposed to destroying enemy forces wherever they may be. Once you destroy the enemy's army, it's easy to get objective hexes...

Am I imagining things, or is this a real issue in WIF play?
Fred

There is one moment in WiF where what you say applies unconditionally and totally, this is the moment when Germany goes after Russia, and also the moment when Russia is on the offensive and go against Germany.
Those fights are 95% after killing enemy units, position is only good if it allows killing more enemy units.

Except those, the rest of the fights you do in WiF are more at conquering countries to eliminate them from the map, or taking good positions for defense / offense, to achieve the first objective.

[trees]

actually it's all about the economy, youknow

[CBoehm]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

There is one moment in WiF where what you say applies unconditionally and totally, this is the moment when Germany goes after Russia, and also the moment when Russia is on the offensive and go against Germany.
Those fights are 95% after killing enemy units, position is only good if it allows killing more enemy units.

To some extend ...I feel completely OPPOSITE (atleast in the short term tactics) ...For the allies IMO the most effective strategy is to constantly open and expand fronts to tie up more and more Ge units rather than to try to break an existing front ...ofcause in reality its a mix of both, the wallies force Ge to strech his units thin so that eventually he will be too weak at a point and you smash him ....my point is simply that tactically expanding a front by 1 hex will on avarage force Ge to commit something appoaching 1.5 extra corps ...so for USSR to force Ge backwards it will often be more effective to build 12-20 corps for 30-40 bp or so, extending the front by 10 hexes and forcing Ge to either commit a comparable number of corps or retreat to a shorter line ...ofcause at some point when you cannot strech the line more ...you MUST kill him ...but tying up corps is often almost as good as killing them ...and certainly IMO an extremely effective tactic to employ by the US - CW in 41-42 ...then when you have fronts in Greece, Yougoslavia, Bulgaria, Italy France, Denmark ...and you run out of places to extend then you must be more direct, but until then I find the indirect approach often more effective than direct assault even though its always the threat of direct assault that forces Ge to commit more than one corps per hex ...

example:
I once managed to liberate NEI and South China with the US in 42 ...with only having done 3 attacks vs. actual corps having failed all miserably having rolled pure "1"...

ITS NOT WHAT YOU KILL - ITS WHAT YOU DO
(capturing territory and hampering productiong by taking either factories/resources or getting better bases for targeting cps ...is often much much more important that killing a few measely bps, but again no rules witout exceptions)

[coregames]

ORIGINAL: CBoehm
ITS NOT WHAT YOU KILL - ITS WHAT YOU DO

From the middle of the game on, you are probably right. Early in the game, however, due to the low production multiples, on-board forces are much more important, especially for the Axis. Obviously some risks have to be taken, but if a power only produces with a few BP, each unit lost early in the game is proportionately much more expensive to replace.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

The side with the numeric advantage wants to extend the line (# of hexes in the front line) to reduce the weaker side's strength per hex. The stronger side can then concentrate his extra strength against a point (preferably a weak point) in the enemy's line's and break through. This is true of Germany in France in 1940 - Germany invades Belgium to extend the French line - and Germany in Russia in 1941/2. When the balance of power shifts and Germany becomes the weaker side, then the Allies want to extend the front line. I consider this a basic principle of tactical combat and already have it as such for the AIO.

Of course the weaker side is anxious to shorten the front line.

Tricky bits are when the end of the front line is hanging; as it is in North Africa and possibly in northern USSR, if the Axis pushes past Leningrad.

=========

The value of combat units/build points depends on how it affects the balance of power. When the on-map strength totals are low, then individual units can have a major impact. When they are high, it takes more units to shift the balance of power. The AIO logic does this by unit type/combat type: air-to-air, naval surface, naval air, submarines versus ASW, land, and armor (for example).

So, adding/removing a Chinese fighter can have a major effect early in the war. Building multiple strategic bombers if the enemy does not have AA and/or fighter protection for his factories, can also be effective. And so on.

[Froonp]

The side with the numeric advantage wants to extend the line (# of hexes in the front line) to reduce the weaker side's strength per hex. The stronger side can then concentrate his extra strength against a point (preferably a weak point) in the enemy's line's and break through. This is true of Germany in France in 1940 - Germany invades Belgium to extend the French line - and Germany in Russia in 1941/2. When the balance of power shifts and Germany becomes the weaker side, then the Allies want to extend the front line. I consider this a basic principle of tactical combat and already have it as such for the AIO.

Of course the weaker side is anxious to shorten the front line.

Tricky bits are when the end of the front line is hanging; as it is in North Africa and possibly in northern USSR, if the Axis pushes past Leningrad.

There are times in Russia, where there is no frontline.
Barbarossa 41 is usually such a time.
And when the German is in such a situation, he does not targets objectives, nor positions, but he simply goes rampant and targets at destroying the Red Army, whereever it is. The German can achieve this in M/J & J/A 41.

[trees]

I thought Fred brought up a very interesting and classical strategy question. The difference with WiF is that it is not a purely operational level game; in addition to destroying the enemy's forces you also have to destroy their ability to replace those forces. For example if the Axis invade Russia and steadily kill Red Army units but never advance fast enough to cut off some factories before they get railed to Siberia, they've done little to damage the Russian economy in the long run. A lot of the Russian resource base is a long way from the Axis but their industrial base is right there in front of them. So location, location, location really is important in WiF.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: trees
I thought Fred brought up a very interesting and classical strategy question. The difference with WiF is that it is not a purely operational level game; in addition to destroying the enemy's forces you also have to destroy their ability to replace those forces. For example if the Axis invade Russia and steadily kill Red Army units but never advance fast enough to cut off some factories before they get railed to Siberia, they've done little to damage the Russian economy in the long run. A lot of the Russian resource base is a long way from the Axis but their industrial base is right there in front of them. So location, location, location really is important in WiF.

There can't be a "steadily Red Army destruction" without a "fast advance". Both happens, the first create the second.
I just want to point out that in this special case, the German is not driven forward by position gaining, but only by Red Army destroying.

I agree that you need to destroy the ability to replace lost force, the need to hit the economy, but I wanted to stress out that in the Special case of the 1941 Barbarossa where there is no frontline, the German must "know how to go crazy" after the Red Army, and not siùmply try at achieving positions. Sure, the Dniepr must be crossed asap, but there after, the Red Army must be hunted down. The factory line will be reached while doing that.

The Red Army too, when the tide has turned, must know how to fight an attritionnal war against the German, that is make a lot low odd assaults without weakening itself. Very often on the Russian front, battles are thought not only for position, but very often only for weakening the enemy on the long run.

[trees]

I mean German players who methodically siege the Russian cities at the best odds possible, without taking much risk. The Russians leave forward just enough units to cover the rail lines needed to move the factories. This can be a fair amount of units. The Germans kill all these units and arrive past the factory line at last, only to discover more new units coming at them (or maybe still running away, there's not much of value after the factory line). A summer of 41 that kills 15 or more Russian Infantry units but doesn't stop a single factory from going east is a failed Barbarossa, location does matter. It's the Russian players choice how many units get killed; an INF, GARR, or MIL for a factory is an easy trade.

[wosung]

Playing around with CWIF I found out that "location" can also be important for preventing the Russian players new units to arrive in a city near the front.

Anyway, I think that's no small part of the war in the East in WIF: To get the reinforcement up front. And I found it astonishingly difficult even for the Russians in their home country, with most of the West Russian cities in German hands.

Regards

[composer99]

The Axis objective is to expand as much as is possible and secure their victories by knocking out either the CW or the USSR as an effective fighting force. Failing that, their goal to consolidate their defensive perimeters and withstand the ensuing Allied onslaught through to the end of the game.

The Allied objective is first to blunt, hinder, and otherwise delay the Axis offensives in the early to mid game, secondly to transform their economic advantage into military terms, and finally to conquer the Axis, preferably before the J/A 1945 turn.

Either side should certainly, if the opportunity arises, attempt to secure an automatic victory (easier for the Allies than for the Axis).

The destruction of enemy war materiel is certainly a key part of achieving those objectives, but it should not be considered an end in itself.

For example, in a Barbarossa, while it is true that the Axis must destroy as many units as they can (hopefully at least 50bp per summer turn), their principal objectives are to conquer Baku in the south and reach (or even breach) the Ural mountain line in the north - as this will not only result in lots of dead Russians but will also probably shatter Soviet production and deliver the desired knockout blow. Destroying the Red Army is a fine goal, but unless you can also reach the distant factory/resource refuges they will eventually be able to make good their losses and come marching back into Europe.

As another example, the Axis campaign against the CW convoy lines (assuming they are not pursuing a Sealion strategy) may be about sinking CW convoys (and the odd escort or two), but its principal purpose is to consolidate the Axis defensive perimeter(s) by forcing the CW to waste production, existing forces, and activity limits on defending and rebuilding convoys and convoy pipelines (as well as effecting an overall lowering of CW production for as long as possible).

[coregames]

There can't be a "steadily Red Army destruction" without a "fast advance". Both happens, the first create the second.
I just want to point out that in this special case, the German is not driven forward by position gaining, but only by Red Army destroying.

Patrice has a point. Advance is important, and penetration into the Russian position is the best way to cut off their units, especially if option 47 (isolated reorganization) is in effect. This being the case, the farther the Germans can penetrate enemy lines, the more Russian forces will be cut off and eventually destroyed. If the choice of how to advance is between long-term positional gains versus short-term destruction of enemy forces, I agree the latter should have higher priority. Factories are the exception to this obviously.

[bredsjomagnus]

Im about to begin the barbarossa scenario with a friend, and planning my strategy it came to my mind that if the german player surrounds as many russian units as it can but then don´t kill them off (so they can´t be rebuilt) would that be a possible strategy?[&:] And if so does the AI in MWIF tend to use it in any way?
 
If there is now way for the USSR player to get his/her units back, I can´t see no reason why the german player should destroy them. Destroying them would only help USSR.
 
 
/Magnus

[Froonp]

There are reasons for Germany to destroy them.
To keep them surrounded, you need to keep some units around, units that won't be available elsewhere.
It you surround them and don't kill them, if the Russian comes back in the future, and break your surrounding, then he will suddenly be stronger with these extra units.
Your surrounding units will themselves be out of supply most of the time, unless you devote an HQ for that, so they won't be able to kill the surrounded unit if the need arose, without sending an HQ and more units, which may be a problem while you would be occupied to something else.
Your surrounding units are un the surrounded units ZoC, and don't count as antipartisan units...

Well, there are reasons, and the surrounded unit ought to be worth it, to be kept surrounded.

[bredsjomagnus]

Ok thanks.
 
I forgot to write that we might use the option 47: "You can only turn a unit face-up if it can trace a path to a primary supply source for that unit". Do I need to guard surrounded russian units anyway, using this opiton?
 
Of course you are right that the surrounded units might cause a problem later when the russians come back. But do the russians get time to counter attack in the "One kick..." scenario?
 
/Magnus

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: bredsjomagnus

Ok thanks.

I forgot to write that we might use the option 47: "You can only turn a unit face-up if it can trace a path to a primary supply source for that unit". Do I need to guard surrounded russian units anyway, using this opiton?

I assumed that this option was in play, but why would they be face-down ? If face down, they can be reorganized by long ranged russian LND. And if they are not, and you do not guard them, why wouldn't they dash to somewhere, changing hex control on the way and possibly cutting supply ? Well, enemy units behind you lines are always a problem, whatever.

Of course you are right that the surrounded units might cause a problem later when the russians come back. But do the russians get time to counter attack in the "One kick..." scenario?

I don't know, I never play anything else that 1939 Campaign.

[bredsjomagnus]

Ok mayby it was a bad idea after all [:)]. Didn´t think about the reorganisation by air, and as you mentioned, one wouldn´t want to have enemy units going wild behind the front lines.
 
Thanks.
 
 
/Magnus