Matrix Games Forums

Command gets Wargame of the Year EditionDeal of the Week: Pandora SeriesPandora: Eclipse of Nashira is now availableDistant Worlds Gets another updateHell is Approaching Deal of the Week Battle Academy Battle Academy 2 Out now!Legions of Steel ready for betaBattle Academy 2 gets trailers and Steam page!Deal of the Week Germany at War
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

AI for MWIF - Poland

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> AI for MWIF - Poland Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
AI for MWIF - Poland - 9/3/2008 8:41:17 PM   
peskpesk


Posts: 1416
Joined: 7/17/2003
From: Stockholm, Sweden
Status: offline
Poland setup AI

Poland Forces
3-3 INF, 5-3 INF, 3-4 CAV, 4-3 INF, 5-3 INF, 4(2)2 HQI, 1-4 INF DIV 1, 4-4 INF
FTR2, LND2, Naval unit, 1 CP
RES 3-2 MIL, RES 4-2
1939 6-3 INF
1940 6-5 MOT, FTR2, LND3
1941 7-5 MEC
1943 8-6 ARM

Poland has nine basic setups:

* Delay defence: Two Polish corps is sacrificed at the border to ease the risk of direct assault on Lodz.

* Classic Warsaw Iron ring defence: The Polish land forces is setup around Warsaw to prevent an assault on the capital by forcing the Germans to clear surrounding hexes first.

* Arrow defence: The Polish land forces is setup as an arrow leaving only 2 hexes to each factory city open to attack.

* Spear head defence: The Polish land forces is setup as a spear head against Germany, hoping a low roll on Lodz will break the German assault and also to conserve the HQ from ground strike.

* Classic France first defence: The Polish land forces are setup evenly spread out to delay the German conquest of Poland as long as possible during a France first attack. It cost Harry Rowland four turns in the classic battle of the titan games to chew up the last Polish defender.

* South defence: The Polish land forces is setup on more to the south to delay the German advance from Czechoslovakia. Only if there are few Germans in East Prussia.

* North defence: The Polish land forces is setup more to the north to delay German attacks on the factory hexes from East Prussia. Only if there are few Germans in Czechoslovakia.

* City defence: The Polish land forces is setup in only city hexes to deny the Germans any chance of blitz.

* Warsaw Ground strike defence: The Polish land forces leave Warsaw empty (!) to deny the Germans any chance of disrupting the defenders. During the CW impulse two units move into the city. Only if with Motorized movement rates and not with railway movement.


Poland has one extreme setup:

* Border defence: The Polish land unit are setup aggressively on the border to attack if the Germans only have a screening force against the Poland.

Declaration of war
Given a GE declaration of war and CW control of Poland the suggested reasoning for the AI could be as below.

Threats to guard against:
* Threat of German units in East Prussia
* Threat of German units in Czechoslovakia
* Threat of German Screen campaign
* Threat of German France First campaign
* Threat of German normal campaign
* Threat of German grand campaign
* Threat of having planes overrun
* Threat of having naval units overrun

Extreme Good hopes:
* Chance to capture East Prussia
* Chance to try to step on facedown unit(s)


Threat of German units in East Prussia

IF Germany has

Has two or more organized LandUnits AND
The units are in East Prussia AND
They are in supply or can be put in supply AND
They can move into Poland

THEN

Threat of German units in East Prussia

Threat of German units in Czechoslovakia

IF Germany has

Has two or more organized LandUnits AND
The units are in Czechoslovakia AND
They are in supply or can be put in supply AND
They can move into Poland

THEN

Threat of German units in Czechoslovakia


Threat of German Screen campaign

IF Germany has

Less than 6 corps/army sized LandUnits within 5 hex of the polish border
Including Czechoslovakia and East Prussia

THEN

Threat of German Screen campaign

Threat of German France First campaign

IF Germany has

More than 5 corps/army sized LandUnits within 5 hex of the polish border
Including Czechoslovakia and East Prussia AND
Less than 12 corps/army sized LandUnits within 5 hex of the polish border
Including Czechoslovakia and East Prussia

THEN

Threat of German France First campaign

Threat of German normal campaign

IF Germany has

More than 11 corps/army sized LandUnits within 5 hex of the polish border
Including Czechoslovakia and East Prussia AND
Less than 15 corps/army sized LandUnits within 5 hex of the polish border
Including Czechoslovakia and East Prussia


THEN

Threat of German normal campaign

Threat of German grand campaign

IF Germany has

More than 14 corps/army sized LandUnits within 5 hex of the polish border
including Czechoslovakia and East Prussia

THEN

Threat of German grand campaign

Setup Variation
Lodz and Warsaw INF combinations:
When the both cities have INF all combinations of 4-4 INF, 4-3 INF or 5-3 INF, 5-3 INF are possible

FTR2, LND2 combinations:
Have variations of forward placement and rear East Poland placement

When a setup is used

* Border defence
Is consider to be used when A

A) Threat of German Screen campaign

* South defence
Is consider to be used when A AND B

A) No Threat of German units in East Prussia
B) Threat of German units in Czechoslovakia

* North defence
Is consider to be used when A AND B

A) Threat of German units in East Prussia
B) No Threat of German units in Czechoslovakia

* Classic France first defence
Is consider to be used when A

A) Threat of German France First campaign

* Classic Warsaw Iron ring defence
Is consider to be used when A

A) Threat of German France First campaign

* Delay defence
Is consider to be used when A OR B OR C OR When the AI wants

A) Threat of German normal campaign
B) Threat of German grand campaign
C) Threat of German France First campaign

* Arrow defence
Is consider to be used when A OR B OR C

A) Threat of German normal campaign
B) Threat of German grand campaign
C) Threat of German France First campaign

* Spear head defence
Is consider to be used when A

A) Threat of German normal campaign

* City defence
Is consider to be used when A OR B

A) Threat of German France First campaign
B) Threat of German normal campaign

* Ground strike defence
Is consider to be used when A OR B

A) Threat of German normal campaign
B) Threat of German grand campaign

< Message edited by peskpesk -- 9/3/2008 9:39:47 PM >


_____________________________

"'Malta - The Thorn in Rommel's Side"
Post #: 1
RE: AI for MWIF - Poland - 9/3/2008 8:42:05 PM   
peskpesk


Posts: 1416
Joined: 7/17/2003
From: Stockholm, Sweden
Status: offline
* Arrow Defence





Attachment (1)

_____________________________

"'Malta - The Thorn in Rommel's Side"

(in reply to peskpesk)
Post #: 2
RE: AI for MWIF - Poland - 9/3/2008 8:43:04 PM   
peskpesk


Posts: 1416
Joined: 7/17/2003
From: Stockholm, Sweden
Status: offline
* Delay Defence





Attachment (1)

_____________________________

"'Malta - The Thorn in Rommel's Side"

(in reply to peskpesk)
Post #: 3
RE: AI for MWIF - Poland - 9/3/2008 8:44:05 PM   
peskpesk


Posts: 1416
Joined: 7/17/2003
From: Stockholm, Sweden
Status: offline
* Delay Defence B





Attachment (1)

_____________________________

"'Malta - The Thorn in Rommel's Side"

(in reply to peskpesk)
Post #: 4
RE: AI for MWIF - Poland - 9/3/2008 8:44:52 PM   
peskpesk


Posts: 1416
Joined: 7/17/2003
From: Stockholm, Sweden
Status: offline
* City Defence





Attachment (1)

_____________________________

"'Malta - The Thorn in Rommel's Side"

(in reply to peskpesk)
Post #: 5
RE: AI for MWIF - Poland - 9/3/2008 8:46:52 PM   
peskpesk


Posts: 1416
Joined: 7/17/2003
From: Stockholm, Sweden
Status: offline
* Ground Strike Defence





Attachment (1)

_____________________________

"'Malta - The Thorn in Rommel's Side"

(in reply to peskpesk)
Post #: 6
RE: AI for MWIF - Poland - 9/3/2008 8:47:56 PM   
peskpesk


Posts: 1416
Joined: 7/17/2003
From: Stockholm, Sweden
Status: offline
* Classic Warsaw Iron ring defence





Attachment (1)

_____________________________

"'Malta - The Thorn in Rommel's Side"

(in reply to peskpesk)
Post #: 7
RE: AI for MWIF - Poland - 9/3/2008 8:49:07 PM   
peskpesk


Posts: 1416
Joined: 7/17/2003
From: Stockholm, Sweden
Status: offline
* North defence





Attachment (1)

_____________________________

"'Malta - The Thorn in Rommel's Side"

(in reply to peskpesk)
Post #: 8
RE: AI for MWIF - Poland - 9/3/2008 8:49:46 PM   
peskpesk


Posts: 1416
Joined: 7/17/2003
From: Stockholm, Sweden
Status: offline
* South defence





Attachment (1)

_____________________________

"'Malta - The Thorn in Rommel's Side"

(in reply to peskpesk)
Post #: 9
RE: AI for MWIF - Poland - 9/3/2008 8:50:23 PM   
peskpesk


Posts: 1416
Joined: 7/17/2003
From: Stockholm, Sweden
Status: offline
* Spear head defence





Attachment (1)

_____________________________

"'Malta - The Thorn in Rommel's Side"

(in reply to peskpesk)
Post #: 10
RE: AI for MWIF - Poland - 9/3/2008 8:52:15 PM   
peskpesk


Posts: 1416
Joined: 7/17/2003
From: Stockholm, Sweden
Status: offline
* Classic France first defence





Attachment (1)

_____________________________

"'Malta - The Thorn in Rommel's Side"

(in reply to peskpesk)
Post #: 11
RE: AI for MWIF - Poland - 9/3/2008 8:53:28 PM   
peskpesk


Posts: 1416
Joined: 7/17/2003
From: Stockholm, Sweden
Status: offline
* Border defence





Attachment (1)

_____________________________

"'Malta - The Thorn in Rommel's Side"

(in reply to peskpesk)
Post #: 12
RE: AI for MWIF - Poland - 9/4/2008 2:21:38 AM   
composer99


Posts: 2246
Joined: 6/6/2005
From: Ottawa, Canada
Status: offline
One Polish set-up feature I have gradually come around to doing more often is setting the planes up in western Poland so that they do not impede a USSR claim on Eastern Poland in the first impulse. This risks their being flipped during the surprise impulse and later overrun, of course.

Obviously, not very may set-ups allow for this.

This is only important if the USSR is set up and antsy to do an early Bessarabia claim, though.

_____________________________

~ Composer99

(in reply to peskpesk)
Post #: 13
RE: AI for MWIF - Poland - 9/4/2008 3:45:28 AM   
brian brian

 

Posts: 1676
Joined: 11/16/2005
Status: offline
Can the USSR still demand Bessarabia on the first Allied impulse? I thought not. ???

It's fun to set-up Poland since the Germans are already committed. If they are weak in the south, I like to defend Katowice and possibly cost them some resource points on the first turn.

(in reply to composer99)
Post #: 14
RE: AI for MWIF - Poland - 9/4/2008 12:22:50 PM   
michaelbaldur


Posts: 3751
Joined: 4/6/2007
From: denmark
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: peskpesk

* Delay Defence






I like that you have put the HQ in the Russian zone .... I always build the HQ with cw later in the war ......

_____________________________

Peyton manning is a God and the wif rulebook is my bible

I work hard, not smart.

beta tester and Mwif expert

(in reply to peskpesk)
Post #: 15
RE: AI for MWIF - Poland - 9/4/2008 3:57:20 PM   
composer99


Posts: 2246
Joined: 6/6/2005
From: Ottawa, Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian
Can the USSR still demand Bessarabia on the first Allied impulse? I thought not. ???


You are correct, it can't.

What it can do is claim Eastern Poland on the first impulse, running a fast unit along the south so it threatens the rail lines into Rumania when it claims Bessarabia on later impulses (such as, say, the second Allied impulse) in SO1939.

But, if the Polish planes are in Eastern Poland on the first impulse and not in range to groundstrike Germans, that interns both the planes and their pilots, which is bad for the CW (unless you're not playing with pilots, of course).

_____________________________

~ Composer99

(in reply to brian brian)
Post #: 16
RE: AI for MWIF - Poland - 9/5/2008 1:29:51 PM   
micheljq


Posts: 662
Joined: 3/31/2008
From: Quebec
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelbaldur


quote:

ORIGINAL: peskpesk

* Delay Defence






I like that you have put the HQ in the Russian zone .... I always build the HQ with cw later in the war ......


If Poland is conquered, how can you build the polish HQ later?

(in reply to michaelbaldur)
Post #: 17
RE: AI for MWIF - Poland - 9/5/2008 1:51:27 PM   
Froonp


Posts: 7899
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: micheljq
If Poland is conquered, how can you build the polish HQ later?

I believe that this is because when the Russian takes control of the East Poland zone, the Polish units here are interned by Russia, and become available in the CW Force Pool as soon as Russia is at war with the CW.

(in reply to micheljq)
Post #: 18
RE: AI for MWIF - Poland - 9/5/2008 1:52:12 PM   
Froonp


Posts: 7899
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelbaldur
I like that you have put the HQ in the Russian zone .... I always build the HQ with cw later in the war ......

Michael, someone already had taken Mannerheim as his avatar

(in reply to michaelbaldur)
Post #: 19
RE: AI for MWIF - Poland - 9/5/2008 2:45:14 PM   
michaelbaldur


Posts: 3751
Joined: 4/6/2007
From: denmark
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: micheljq
If Poland is conquered, how can you build the polish HQ later?

I believe that this is because when the Russian takes control of the East Poland zone, the Polish units here are interned by Russia, and become available in the CW Force Pool as soon as Russia is at war with the CW.


no .... when Russia is at war with Germany

_____________________________

Peyton manning is a God and the wif rulebook is my bible

I work hard, not smart.

beta tester and Mwif expert

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 20
RE: AI for MWIF - Poland - 9/5/2008 2:46:41 PM   
Eichenblatt

 

Posts: 14
Joined: 8/18/2008
Status: offline
I think it is as soon as Russia is at war with Germany...right?

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 21
RE: AI for MWIF - Poland - 9/5/2008 2:47:57 PM   
Eichenblatt

 

Posts: 14
Joined: 8/18/2008
Status: offline
aaahhh.... I wasn't quick enough...

(in reply to michaelbaldur)
Post #: 22
RE: AI for MWIF - Poland - 9/5/2008 4:40:32 PM   
composer99


Posts: 2246
Joined: 6/6/2005
From: Ottawa, Canada
Status: offline
Yes, it is when USSR is at war with Germany. Patrice just put in the wrong power (no doubt because he was thinking of CW because he was just writing about how the CW gets some Polish units when USSR and Germany are at war provided the USSR has claimed Eastern Poland).

_____________________________

~ Composer99

(in reply to Eichenblatt)
Post #: 23
RE: AI for MWIF - Poland - 9/5/2008 5:36:52 PM   
Incy

 

Posts: 296
Joined: 10/25/2003
Status: offline
I suspect the approach used here is not a good one to arrive at a good polish defense.

The polish war is complex and involves many units, and a good defense will make detailed adjustments based on the exact position and strenght of german units.

I think a better approach to minor country setup would be something akin to:
-designate a number of predetermined setups (like we're doing here).
-simulate the attack impulse against each setup (using the major power AIO to attack each setup based on where units are located
-pick the setup that provides the worst outcome for the attacker (based on the probable outcome. Use the score the MP AOI calculates for picking the best attack for each possible defence)

This gets rid of the need to code a detailed 'recipy' algorithm for each minor country being attacked by each possible set of opponents. The AI would be based on simulation rather than algorithm.

This basic principle could be modified and refined, of course. For instance
-The AI could adjust setups after the fact by running the normal land move AI to check if the land move AI reccomends any land moves based on the situation in the chosen setup (could be applied recursively, until the land move AI doesnt want to move).
-The AI could modify the setup after the fact by trying to swap units with similar defense factors, to see if the new result was better


(in reply to composer99)
Post #: 24
RE: AI for MWIF - Poland - 9/5/2008 6:03:51 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 18342
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Incy

I suspect the approach used here is not a good one to arrive at a good polish defense.

The polish war is complex and involves many units, and a good defense will make detailed adjustments based on the exact position and strenght of german units.

I think a better approach to minor country setup would be something akin to:
-designate a number of predetermined setups (like we're doing here).
-simulate the attack impulse against each setup (using the major power AIO to attack each setup based on where units are located
-pick the setup that provides the worst outcome for the attacker (based on the probable outcome. Use the score the MP AOI calculates for picking the best attack for each possible defence)

This gets rid of the need to code a detailed 'recipy' algorithm for each minor country being attacked by each possible set of opponents. The AI would be based on simulation rather than algorithm.

This basic principle could be modified and refined, of course. For instance
-The AI could adjust setups after the fact by running the normal land move AI to check if the land move AI reccomends any land moves based on the situation in the chosen setup (could be applied recursively, until the land move AI doesnt want to move).
-The AI could modify the setup after the fact by trying to swap units with similar defense factors, to see if the new result was better



Actually what you would want is to mini-max. That is, to examine the best possible moves for the opponent and then choose the defense that minimizes the maximum benefit for the opponent.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Incy)
Post #: 25
RE: AI for MWIF - Poland - 9/5/2008 6:17:43 PM   
wfzimmerman


Posts: 649
Joined: 10/22/2003
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Incy

I suspect the approach used here is not a good one to arrive at a good polish defense.


I think a better approach to minor country setup would be something akin to:
-designate a number of predetermined setups (like we're doing here).
-simulate the attack impulse against each setup (using the major power AIO to attack each setup based on where units are located
-pick the setup that provides the worst outcome for the attacker (based on the probable outcome. Use the score the MP AOI calculates for picking the best attack for each possible defence)

This gets rid of the need to code a detailed 'recipy' algorithm for each minor country being attacked by each possible set of opponents. The AI would be based on simulation rather than algorithm.




Isn't this more or less what the AI is doing when it decides where to move and chooses attacks for a major power?


_____________________________

Contribute to the Steve H. thank you book! http://www.nimblebooks.com/wordpress/2009/04/contribute-to-the-wargamers-wwii-quiz-book/

(in reply to Incy)
Post #: 26
RE: AI for MWIF - Poland - 9/5/2008 8:24:48 PM   
Incy

 

Posts: 296
Joined: 10/25/2003
Status: offline
Yes and Yes (to both of you).
I think using a minimax simulation is easier and probably better, mostly because there are very, very many things that *could* play in significantly for minor setups. Trying to guess and then properly program and evaluate every possible factor that could affect a setup IMHO involves a huge amount of labour, and there is a high risk some key conditition will be left out (simply because it was to obvious, for instance). One example, what if the weather was Storm? Many of the AI recipies/setups we've made so far does not account for this, they assume fine weather.

Furthermore, the mechanism chosen seems to me to be separate form how the main AIO would have to function. The main AIO would need a way to determine every impulse where it wants its units, both longterm (where do I want my defence to be in several moves), and immediately (where do I want my defence *now*). Since the AI will need to be capable of this on a continous basis, it seems to me the same mechanism should be used for setup too. It would be bad to have two separate mechanisms (which would probably lead to the AI changing it's mind about where it preferred its units immediately after setup)

So what we need is a mechanism that can apply to any situation, at any time. But note that it could differ for different powers/countries (most easily by giving a single 'standard AI' a power sepcific map of valuable places/desired objectives/priorities/settings/whatever). I fear a rule based mechanism is not a good choice, because I'm sure it would requires a large amount of rules for a huge number of very specific palces/situations. But still there will always remain plases & situations that are not well defined as a rule set, and thus we're back at square one again, requiring a generic mechanism to handle everything that does not fit nicely into an identifiable ruleset (and again we get sudden changes in the AI as we move form one AI mechanism to a separate and different one).

So I'd rather see a AIO based on simulation/calculation, and that all we provide is heuristics. I.e. we tell the AI what it's goals should be and try to weigh those goals. This could be goals on many levels, and we would want standard ways of embedding goals into the game engine. Then the AIO simulates/calculates the best way to achive as many goals as possible as well as possible.

If we do this the recipies we're making must be different, they must *not* telle the AI how to achieve something, they must only tell the AIO what it wants done.

Example:
-rather than telling the portugese AIO where it should place its units so that key hexes won't be easily invaded, we should let the AIO know what hexes are important to protect, and then let the AI figure out by itself where to place units to achieve that. Note that we'd have to do this in some sort of dynamic way. Coastal hexes, for instance, are much more valuable if no nearby hexes are enemy held, removing the need for the enemy to invade.
-rather than instructing the AIO on how to implement marauder setups, we should tell the AIO where key enemy hexes are and how much they're worth, and then the AI can calculate the odds of capturing each objective by simulating moves and/or through specialised sub-AI's suited to evaluate this problem.

(in reply to wfzimmerman)
Post #: 27
RE: AI for MWIF - Poland - 9/5/2008 9:27:32 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 18342
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Incy

Yes and Yes (to both of you).
I think using a minimax simulation is easier and probably better, mostly because there are very, very many things that *could* play in significantly for minor setups. Trying to guess and then properly program and evaluate every possible factor that could affect a setup IMHO involves a huge amount of labour, and there is a high risk some key conditition will be left out (simply because it was to obvious, for instance). One example, what if the weather was Storm? Many of the AI recipies/setups we've made so far does not account for this, they assume fine weather.

Furthermore, the mechanism chosen seems to me to be separate form how the main AIO would have to function. The main AIO would need a way to determine every impulse where it wants its units, both longterm (where do I want my defence to be in several moves), and immediately (where do I want my defence *now*). Since the AI will need to be capable of this on a continous basis, it seems to me the same mechanism should be used for setup too. It would be bad to have two separate mechanisms (which would probably lead to the AI changing it's mind about where it preferred its units immediately after setup)

So what we need is a mechanism that can apply to any situation, at any time. But note that it could differ for different powers/countries (most easily by giving a single 'standard AI' a power sepcific map of valuable places/desired objectives/priorities/settings/whatever). I fear a rule based mechanism is not a good choice, because I'm sure it would requires a large amount of rules for a huge number of very specific palces/situations. But still there will always remain plases & situations that are not well defined as a rule set, and thus we're back at square one again, requiring a generic mechanism to handle everything that does not fit nicely into an identifiable ruleset (and again we get sudden changes in the AI as we move form one AI mechanism to a separate and different one).

So I'd rather see a AIO based on simulation/calculation, and that all we provide is heuristics. I.e. we tell the AI what it's goals should be and try to weigh those goals. This could be goals on many levels, and we would want standard ways of embedding goals into the game engine. Then the AIO simulates/calculates the best way to achive as many goals as possible as well as possible.

If we do this the recipies we're making must be different, they must *not* telle the AI how to achieve something, they must only tell the AIO what it wants done.

Example:
-rather than telling the portugese AIO where it should place its units so that key hexes won't be easily invaded, we should let the AIO know what hexes are important to protect, and then let the AI figure out by itself where to place units to achieve that. Note that we'd have to do this in some sort of dynamic way. Coastal hexes, for instance, are much more valuable if no nearby hexes are enemy held, removing the need for the enemy to invade.
-rather than instructing the AIO on how to implement marauder setups, we should tell the AIO where key enemy hexes are and how much they're worth, and then the AI can calculate the odds of capturing each objective by simulating moves and/or through specialised sub-AI's suited to evaluate this problem.

While the AIO could do what you describe, more or less, for setting up the minors, it is a heavy handed approach. I don't blieve it is necessary to run through a complicated set of code to decide where to place one or two units.

For example, the AIO will usually be making decisions about movement and the positions of units during play (not during setup of a minor) based on an overall evaluation of the worldwide situation, the balance of power in each of the branches of the armed forces for each side within each theater of operations. Besides this assessment, it will also be using strategic plans about where to attack/defend, both immediately and within the next year.

To go through all this analysis to place a couple of units on the map is excessive. Furthermore, I do not want to integrate additional logic into the master routine to handle the task of placing units on the map. In fact, bringing in reinforcements will be handled separately as well.

I guess my point here is that a single general purpose routine is not always the best solution. As the problem space expands to include different/unique situations, such as setting up minor countries and bringing in reinforcements, the logic grows more complex. It is better to cut the problem into separate pieces whenever possible. If the need arises to perform similar calculations in different places in the logic, then a 'subroutine' can be created to process the common logic.

To strain an analogy, there is no need for a large commercial airplane when a piper cub can do the job just as well.

---
Weather for movement is handled by the logic within a LAIO routine called 'Reach'. This tests whether a unit can 'reach' a given hex, and allows for such fine points as maybe being disorganized upon arrival, and having to skirt neutral hexes. This is easy to do since there are routines within the MWIF code that already perform these calculations. LAIO simply converts the Reach function into a call to the comparable existing function in MWIF code (e.g., for land, air, and naval units).

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Incy)
Post #: 28
RE: AI for MWIF - Poland - 9/6/2008 8:13:47 PM   
peskpesk


Posts: 1416
Joined: 7/17/2003
From: Stockholm, Sweden
Status: offline
* Ground strike defence B





Attachment (1)

_____________________________

"'Malta - The Thorn in Rommel's Side"

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 29
RE: AI for MWIF - Poland - 9/6/2008 8:14:38 PM   
peskpesk


Posts: 1416
Joined: 7/17/2003
From: Stockholm, Sweden
Status: offline
The plan behind Ground strike defence. In the B variant might even the 3-4 reinforce Warszawa, should it have survived the first attack. Remember that setup is only possible if using with Motorized movement rates and not with railway movement






Attachment (1)

_____________________________

"'Malta - The Thorn in Rommel's Side"

(in reply to peskpesk)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> AI for MWIF - Poland Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.117