Recommended settings vs an AI German

[wga8888]

From scenario play vs AI to learn, the German AI is greatly lacking. Russian AI may be better, but AI Germans are not overly agressive, seek to form pockets quickly, or would seem challenging in a campaign game.

What advantages should German AI get? Hard, +1 attack and/or defense, Game Option Levels?

As a novice Russian player, i would like Russia to survive to the endgme but not necessarily win.

Suggestions are welcome

[loki100]

Heres some settings I've used in my current AI game, sorry the image contains other bits and pieces but can't face finding it back and re-editing:



It worked, 1941 saw the Germans at the gates of Moscow, 1942 saw them over the Don near Stalingrad. So I'd clearly added enough brute force on their side and weakening to mine. I then pulled a massive encirclement west of the Don that led to a summer of disasters for the axis in the Stalino region. June 1944 and I've forced Romania out of the war and am in East Prussia.

Think I've got all I wanted out of the game so probably will not bother to complete. The AI can't defend intelligently when its totally outmatched as its only interest is in pulling back.

Usual issues with an AI game, lack of pockets (or more strictly it routs you too easily out of pockets), too many low odds attacks but it was a good challenge and the summer of 1942 was very frustrating.

edit - the full image is the situation just before the Soviet winter counterattack in 1941

[wga8888]

Thanks for the insight. Was there any attack or defend +1 for the Germans?;

Even though its AI, I would like a competitive game. I have finished several scenarios (RTL, RTD, Sturgeon-catch) with default settings. Winning at a 10-1 ration without really knowing what I am doing is a disturbing trend; playing campaign vs German at default settings looks like a waste of limited discretionary time. AI is a poor replacement for a thinking/learning human opponent. AI's only strengths is it is always willing to play & and allows you to learn the basic mechanics.

[loki100]

the impact of that high morale level was probably about +3/4 per notional cv which helped.

It was a good competitive game up to summer 1943 when it gave me two huge pockets in the lower Don-Donets regions (and it was a good bit of further learning as to the problems the Soviets face in the summer of 1942 with low morale). I then played up to the summer of 1944 as there were things I wanted to test out about the best Support Units for Red Army #2.

I'll probably not finish as the AI is so outnumbered now that all it does is to fall back out of danger - a sensible appreciation of risk but it means the process of going from the borders of the Reich to Berlin will be little but a case of moving the counters.

[heliodorus04]

You are correct that default settings vs. a German AI isn't much challenge.
While I realize that everyone has their favorite side to play,
try playing the Axis in 1941. The pressure on the Axis to have a good 1941 is a very good teacher of how good the AI can be.
(Here again, though, the AI has a difficult time dealing with all the possible movement possibilities enabled by Axis HQ Buildup, so I advise people playing the AI not to abuse it. Use it very rarely or not at all.

[wga8888]

Ita a suggestion to play Axis, but I have no interest in playing Axis in WITE (or WITW) or Japan in WITP.

In 40 years of boardgaming, I consistently have always played the non-Roman, Colonials, Union, Entendte, American, Russians, Allies. This was due to my local and remote opponents always playing the aggressor: Roman, British, Confederates, Central Powers, Germany, Japan, Axis. The downside is rarely is the mid-game played, end-game is almost never seen. Either the aggressor wins early or wants to restart; they are not interested in playing a controlled defensive to see if they can survive past the historical date.

I think the bias in computer game player communities (War in Europe, WITE, WITP)is towards Axis and Japan. All the options are pro-Axis or pro-Japan. Designs allow that side great flexibility in modifying forces, production, advancing availability dates, etc while the Allied side is fixed. Result is Axis.Japan consistently win. The player communities, primarily composed of German/Japanese players, get the result they want.

I am suspicious of reduced blizzard effects for this reason. It may be necessary to ensure the fall of Leningrad in 1942, Moscow in 41/early 42 and everything else by early 43. But then what are you actually playing? perhaps just a fantasy game weakly based history.

[loki100]

to be fair, I think what you are highlighting is the problem in any game where the dynamics are that one side has an early chance to win (however remote/implausible) and if that doesn't happen then the balance of the game is working out when the predictable end point will arrive.

I think its a matter of finding the right PBEM opponents (or swapping sides). I personally have had great PBEMs playing the French in AGEOD's French and Indian Wars scenario in Wars in America. Its the Seven Years War in N America, and you have about one campaign season when you can 'win', miss that and the outcome is inevitable. If you like finding ways to upset a powerful enemy the process of losing can be great fun. Another is Rise of Prussia (Seven Years War in Europe), if with the Prussians you haven't driven the Austrians to the wall by the second summer of the war then you will probably lose. But making the coalition pay for their victory can be interesting and you have a chance to drive France or Russia out of the war by being really ruthless about your priorities.

I really don't think that WiTE is inherently biased any more. The real problem, mainly due to the limited logistics model, is that there is a lot of 'rich get richer' rules and very few rules to dampen this effect.

[MattFL]

ORIGINAL: wga

In 40 years of boardgaming, I consistently have always played the non-Roman, Colonials, Union, REntendte, American, ussians, Allies. This was due to my local and remote opponents always playing the aggressor: Roman, British, Confederates, Central Powers, Germany, Japan, Axis. The downside is rarely is the mid-game played, end-game is almost never seen. Either the aggressor wins early or wants to restart; they are not interested in playing a controlled defensive to see if they can survive past the historical date.

This makes you a true minority! Most people want to play the side that attacks or the side perceived as the "Elite" side despite their eventual defeat in just about all of the examples above.

I think the bias in computer game player communities (War in Europe, WITE, WITP)is towards Axis and Japan. All the options are pro-Axis or pro-Japan. Designs allow that side great flexibility in modifying forces, production, advancing availability dates, etc while the Allied side is fixed. Result is Axis.Japan consistently win. The player communities, primarily composed of German/Japanese players, get the result they want.

I think this is because the games are probably designed such that the player is going to play the Axis or Japan. The reason being a) it's the more challenging side given that they lost and B) computers/AI defend far better than they attack. So my guess is the options are meant to allow a player to tweak the balance a bit to give that side a chance to win.

[Gabriel B.]

Hard .

Loki setings are intresting but I have find Hard to be more dificult because of the incresed logistic suport for germans ( it alows themm to strike deep faster in 1941) and weaker soviet forces ( 80 vs 90.)

[IvanShuski]

Greetings

I'm one of those players who like to play the defender more than the attacker. Back in the old Second Front days, I used to play the
Soviets in '41, then switch to the Germans once I got the Red Army rolling towards Berlin, around '42-'43.

I have played a few games in WITE against a German AI. Even with increased difficulty levels, I've come to find two main problems with the computer (mind my last game was pre 1.07):

1) While the level of agression of the AI is not that bad, it collapses when it comes to launch an attack across a river. Specially a big river: place three counters behind it, and you are pretty safe.

The worst case is the Dnieper: no matter how crappy my units defending the river are, or how strong are theirs, the AI won't attack. Kiev, Crimea and all Eastern Ukraine is, thus, unreachable for the AI. It attempts to capture Kiev by frontal assault, but makes no attempt to surround it if you man your side of the river with a reasonable garrison. Further north, she didn't even attempt to cross the Volkhov to cut-off Leningrad, either. That lets you concentrate everything else of minimum quality before Moscow.

2) Later on the game, and not surprisingly, the increased casualty rate of the AI units leads to his army becoming mostly an empty casket, turning your advance to Berlin into a massive, not funny mop-up operation. It's Ok if that happens in 1945, but not so much when it happens in 1943.

I've gathered the time to play one more game, running with the lastest patch. I have set it to a custom difficulty level of 150 / 100 and taken the following additional measures:

1) I've edited the 1941 scenario and set the German IA to all-out, only attack. Later, as the game progresses I'll tone down the agression level appropiately. Maybe it would be a good idea in the future if the developers included an option to set the AI Behaviour on the Game Settings, so the player can adjust it without need to edit a savegame (savegames can be edited with the scenario editor, just change the name of the file extension).

2) I've doubled Axis manpower and factory production. This is something I find also lacking in the Game Settings. You can give them a morale bonus, admin, supply, etc... but not a straight production bonus like you could do in good old Second Front/War in Russia (where setting a side to "maximum help" would double production and infantry replacements). I have also given a further Resource Production bonus (in addition to doubling it) to the Germans in order to ensure their factories will be kept well supplied (no use increasing factory capacity if he lacks the resources to fuel it).

After I've checked the effect of those changes, I plan to experiment further options like increasing the manpower even more (back in SF, doubling the producton worked to keep the enemy army well supplied despite loses, but doubling the manpower was not enough), or increasing the base national morale/experience of the Axis so their shattered and surrendered units come back with a better base experience and morale (not sure if that can be done with the Editor).

However, the main problem for me is the River issue. It's what made me drop playing against the AI back in 1.06.X. She needs to cross into Eastern Ukraine, one way or another.

[Gabriel B.]

wrt kiev you are wrong .

the AI atacks with the 6th army north of kiev (trough the swamps) and 1st tank group at Kremenchuk.

this is of course on hard level, since I dont bother playing below that, against the ai .[:D]

as for doubled axis manpower - It is allready 700,000 men above historical numbers.
SF seams to stand also for science fiction, but war in the east aims for historical production. [:)]

[IvanShuski]

The IA needs a lot of extra manpower to deal with the inevitable extra casualties due to poor-planed attacks and, later on, non-prevented pockets. You can as well set the German IA to infinite manpower and production, as the size of the Axis Army is fixed, and once you get the Red Army to sufficient strenght and experience, you'll roll it anyway - or that's what I expect to do.

Now in my current game the IA seems to be working better than I used to remember. I dunno if it's due to IA improvements since 1.06X, or me having set the agression level to maximum. She's doing fine in the North and in the Center, following historical schelude. It has even broke through the Dnepr at Mogilev, formery it would advance towards Smolensk only by storming the River Gates at Vitebsk, now she collapsed the whole area (as she should). Let's see if she will show the same resolve to cross the Dnepr where it matters - Kiev.

At the South, she still finds itself bogged down in the Tarnopol-Proskurov area. The IA can't handle deep-level encirclements, and that can hardly be helped by the developers, it's impossible to write a script taking into account that many variables. That's why you have to hyper-strenghten the IA to compensate.

But further south the romanians are actually advancing! That's something I had never seen before. They used to believe anything beyond the Prut river was "Here be Dragons". They will make my day if they manage to reach the outskirts of Odessa before the Germans come down the Dnestr-Bug corridor.

Further Tips when playing against the IA:
Play casual. Don't min-max like you would have to do when playing against an human. Feel the game atmosphere, instead of exploiting the game mechanics.

Most people seem to think playing against the IA as a learning tool. Wrong. Except for a few initial games to get the hang on the game dynamics, playing against the IA is terrible for learning because you only adquire vices.

When you play agains the IA, your objective is not beating the opponent (you'll do it anyway, it's the IA), but to set your own goals. Win with a hand tied to the back. Better, with both hands tied to the back and a blindfold.

Some self-restraints that tend to work well are:
- Don't abuse the carpet-checkboard defence. Form layers of defensive lines as the Soviets did. That's totally stupid against an human oponent, but against the IA it lets you feel like you are doing something more historically accurate.

- Let the IA handle the support units and the air operations.

- Don't be hasty to replace commanders. Let Voroshilov and Budenny eat all those defeats in the early days so they don't taint the record of competent commanders. After all, you don't want your good commanders accidentally executed or KIA. Against an human oponent you need to take the risk, but not against the IA.

- Retreat your lines when on risk of encirclement, like as if the IA could handle deep encirclement operations. You know she can't, and that lets you delay the retreats. Let's pretend she can, instead. Flee at the sight of those back-backgrounded counters approaching your flanks, liek you would do against an human opponent.

- Don't abuse deep-operations later on. Encircling the IA is like child abuse. Let her a passage open to retreat and only full encircle if she refuses to take it.

- When in doubt, think "What Would Stalin Do?", and do it. Replace with "What Would Hitler Do?" if playing the Germans. Lots of fun times when you have to rescue those units you didn't retreat on time, get your offensives over-extended, or both. [:D]

[demyansk]

That's the way I play the game, I really don't mess with the air ops but I get killed against human opponents.