Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: AI for MWiF-Italy

 
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 Opponent Discussion >> RE: AI for MWiF-Italy Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: AI for MWiF-Italy - 12/18/2006 7:21:54 PM   
hakon

 

Posts: 298
Joined: 4/15/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

Well, you tell me that "Italy should have her entire original force pool of land units available", but you don't built it (you only have 11 BP for that in 39-40 with your built schedule, unless I made mistakes in my counts), so you can't have 2 units in each factory, and can't ZoC each invasion site. There can't be any MECH, except the setup one, because you only have 11 BP for that. Well, there can be 2 of them, right, but this mean that there is only 1 BP for the whole rest of the 1939 & 1940 years to built. Moreover, if you promise to cross the Urals to the Italian, you'll need every German unit that you can spare, both to push through the Red Army, and to garrison your previous conquests. I don't see how you can both crush the Russian and defend Italy with only Germans units.

All this leads me to say that we do not play the same game.


Of course Italy can be conquered in 1941, if she makes mistakes. I dont like making that kind of mistakes.

Italy starts with about enough units to put 1 in each coastal factory city. So 5-6 more are needed to have 2 in each, 4 of these come from Africa. Another 7-8 are needed to put 1 unit it every dangerous minor port as well as in rome + Milan. The mech may go into sicily, and I tend to build a mech div to be able to call blitz in the north. (The div will typically be built in may/june 41). Graziani often stays in France at this point, but he (along with a German HQ if needed) will rail into Italy if there is an invasion, while the land units already there will help contain the invasion force until it can be blitzed back to sea. (Provided of course, that it doesnt land in a hex that can be easily dislodged.

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 121
RE: AI for MWiF-Italy - 12/18/2006 8:58:34 PM   
Froonp


Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp
Moreover, I'd add that those kind of games seem more enjoyable in my opinion, because everyone gets to play and enjoy at one moment or the other, not only the German or the CW. In the games you describe, I'm not sure that the Russian enjoys it very much.

Finaly, I'd conclude that you are playing against RAW (by having an Axis players match that is not recommended, and house ruling out of the game one of the strategies -- the stuff -- which I would surely agree upon, because I also hate it ), and that the result may be a game where not all players enjoy the experience.

Hey, how does the Russian player feel about those kinds of games ?

I doubt that the AI Opponent will feel very much of anything.

But how would the human player who choose to play Russia alone vs. the AI would feel if he discovered that the AI always team up Germany + Italy against Russia, because this-was-never-beaten ?

Moreover, the AI has to comply with RAW, and RAW does not recommend having the same player playing Italy & Germany.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 122
RE: AI for MWiF-Italy - 12/18/2006 9:37:01 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 21954
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp
Moreover, I'd add that those kind of games seem more enjoyable in my opinion, because everyone gets to play and enjoy at one moment or the other, not only the German or the CW. In the games you describe, I'm not sure that the Russian enjoys it very much.

Finaly, I'd conclude that you are playing against RAW (by having an Axis players match that is not recommended, and house ruling out of the game one of the strategies -- the stuff -- which I would surely agree upon, because I also hate it ), and that the result may be a game where not all players enjoy the experience.

Hey, how does the Russian player feel about those kinds of games ?

I doubt that the AI Opponent will feel very much of anything.

But how would the human player who choose to play Russia alone vs. the AI would feel if he discovered that the AI always team up Germany + Italy against Russia, because this-was-never-beaten ?

Moreover, the AI has to comply with RAW, and RAW does not recommend having the same player playing Italy & Germany.

I find all this discussion very helpful in formualting possible AIO strategic plans for Italy. Which one is chosen and the frequency with which each is chosen remains to be seen. Having the AIO always choose the same strategic plan would be really boring, so that won't happen (even for China).

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 123
RE: AI for MWiF-Italy - 12/18/2006 9:45:30 PM   
wosung

 

Posts: 688
Joined: 7/18/2005
Status: offline
But please, don't let the Axis and the Allies AIO act like the Borg.

Each of them should have its' own targets. Don't overdo AIO team-playing

I think Patrice is absolutely right here.

Regards

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 124
RE: AI for MWiF-Italy - 12/18/2006 9:54:40 PM   
Froonp


Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: wosung

But please, don't let the Axis and the Allies AIO act like the Borg.

Each of them should have its' own targets. Don't overdo AIO team-playing

I think Patrice is absolutely right here.

Regards

Wow Someone who does not disagree with me !!!!!

(in reply to wosung)
Post #: 125
RE: AI for MWiF-Italy - 12/18/2006 9:56:30 PM   
Froonp


Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: wosung
Each of them should have its' own targets. Don't overdo AIO team-playing

While I agree with what wosung wrote, obviously, let me also stress that team play is important in WiF FE.
There is no victory possible, for no one, without team play.

We just need to reach the correct mix of team playing.

(in reply to wosung)
Post #: 126
RE: AI for MWiF-Italy - 12/18/2006 9:58:59 PM   
wosung

 

Posts: 688
Joined: 7/18/2005
Status: offline
No no no, you're wrong on that

I'm sure it's not only me.

There should be others as well, who agree with you

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 127
RE: AI for MWiF-Italy - 12/18/2006 10:04:35 PM   
wosung

 

Posts: 688
Joined: 7/18/2005
Status: offline
BTW: Nobody else interested in some sort of interface for inter-alliance negotiations, at least for dealing with the AIO??

Nobody here without totalitarian team-play discipline

(in reply to wosung)
Post #: 128
RE: AI for MWiF-Italy - 12/18/2006 10:26:24 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 21954
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: wosung
Each of them should have its' own targets. Don't overdo AIO team-playing

While I agree with what wosung wrote, obviously, let me also stress that team play is important in WiF FE.
There is no victory possible, for no one, without team play.

We just need to reach the correct mix of team playing.

I believe I have been both consistent and clear on this. Each AIO for a major power will operate independently. There is provision for specific decision makers within each major power's AIO to provide communication to other AIOs on the same side (Foreign Liaisons). This goes beyond mere trade agreements and lend lease, to include sharing of all the other elements in the game (victory cities, resources, units, etc.). I also expect there to be a dominant major power for each side within a theater of operations (e.g., Europe and Pacific) with the other AIOs that are involved in that theater following the lead of the dominant major power AIO. Germany in Europe, Japan in the Pacific. CW in Europe and Pacific until the US enters the war. Then the US takes over the Pacific, and maybe eventually Europe too. The non-dominant AIOs will not be slave states, neither will they operate with complete disregard of what the dominant AIO is doing/planning.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 129
RE: AI for MWiF-Italy - 12/18/2006 10:41:02 PM   
wosung

 

Posts: 688
Joined: 7/18/2005
Status: offline
Yes Steve, I perfectly understood this.

But my main point for inter-alliance negotiations was another one:

(How) does a human player communicate with his AIO allies?

If a human player just wants to play Italy, how does he strategically interact with German AIO?

Or take human CW and US AIO. Now what about D-Day???

Regards

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 130
RE: AI for MWiF-Italy - 12/19/2006 12:01:03 AM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 21954
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: wosung
Yes Steve, I perfectly understood this.

But my main point for inter-alliance negotiations was another one:

(How) does a human player communicate with his AIO allies?

If a human player just wants to play Italy, how does he strategically interact with German AIO?

Or take human CW and US AIO. Now what about D-Day???

Regards

Well, if the AI is on the human player's side, then it is an AIA (assistant) not an AIO (opponent). I make this distinction because there will be different code for these 2 roles. I do not have any specific plans for including an AIA with MWIF product 1, other than what is required for PBEM. The PBEM design calls for the AIA acting on a player's behalf by following "Standing Orders". Most of the standing orders relate to air movement and combat, but not exclusively. Basically, they are the decisions a player make as the non-phasing player (e.g., combat casualties, choice of combat tables, interceptions, and so on). Altogether there are over 2 dozen Standing Orders.

To support standing orders, the program will contain a player interface where the human player decides in advance how he wants these decisions made. Over the course of a game, that will save thousands of emails.

If you simply review the discussion in this thread over the last couple of days, you will see that negotiations between 2 major powers can involve numerous details. Building a system for storing all those details and a player interface to support human-AIA negotiation would be a lot of work.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to wosung)
Post #: 131
RE: AI for MWiF-Italy - 12/19/2006 2:45:10 AM   
po8crg

 

Posts: 15
Joined: 12/13/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Well, if the AI is on the human player's side, then it is an AIA (assistant) not an AIO (opponent). I make this distinction because there will be different code for these 2 roles. I do not have any specific plans for including an AIA with MWIF product 1, other than what is required for PBEM. The PBEM design calls for the AIA acting on a player's behalf by following "Standing Orders".

If you simply review the discussion in this thread over the last couple of days, you will see that negotiations between 2 major powers can involve numerous details. Building a system for storing all those details and a player interface to support human-AIA negotiation would be a lot of work.


Whoa, back up a bit.

Does that mean that it will be impossible to play only part of the Allies/Axis with human players?

Does that mean that if a human goes missing in a multi-player game, his country can't be handed over to the AI?

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 132
RE: AI for MWiF-Italy - 12/19/2006 2:57:35 AM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 21954
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: po8crg
quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Well, if the AI is on the human player's side, then it is an AIA (assistant) not an AIO (opponent). I make this distinction because there will be different code for these 2 roles. I do not have any specific plans for including an AIA with MWIF product 1, other than what is required for PBEM. The PBEM design calls for the AIA acting on a player's behalf by following "Standing Orders".

If you simply review the discussion in this thread over the last couple of days, you will see that negotiations between 2 major powers can involve numerous details. Building a system for storing all those details and a player interface to support human-AIA negotiation would be a lot of work.


Whoa, back up a bit.

Does that mean that it will be impossible to play only part of the Allies/Axis with human players?

Does that mean that if a human goes missing in a multi-player game, his country can't be handed over to the AI?

Yes to both.

2 of the scenarios are limited to half the world: Europe/Pacific. So if you just want to play one theater of operations and not the other, that's easy. For example, just Japan or just Germany/Italy. If you play the Allied side in the Pacific, you only get part of the forces for: USSR, USA, and CW. These are all part of the WIF FE scenarios, and the rules for all of this are taken straight from WIF FE Rules As Written (RAW).

You could substitute a 'new' player if one "goes missing", which includes assigning the missing major power to a player already in the game.

This is not that I think having the AIA co-command a side is a bad thing. It is just a lot of work to enable.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to po8crg)
Post #: 133
RE: AI for MWiF-Italy - 12/19/2006 3:13:06 AM   
po8crg

 

Posts: 15
Joined: 12/13/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets


This is not that I think having the AIA co-command a side is a bad thing. It is just a lot of work to enable.


OK, that's fine, just not what I had anticipated. I think a lot of the discussions on many of the other AI threads have had the same misconception as I did.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 134
RE: AI for MWiF-Italy - 12/19/2006 5:19:59 AM   
trees

 

Posts: 175
Joined: 5/28/2006
Status: offline
Playing without the rules for breaking the Pact is a completely different game. In RaW WiF you couldn't break the Nazi-Soviet Pact with such massive lending to Italy unless the Russians let you. So one counter-strategy is to go back to playing RaW. Another counter-strategy to such a kitchen-sink plus bathroom-sink Barbarossa is to simply run like hell, forgetting any idea of a line on the Dnepr, leaving Garrison and Militia caltrops all over the place covering factory movements while never ever letting the Russian mechanized forces come within range of very good Axis bombers until you get to the passes in the Caucausus mountains, the swamps south of Archangelsk or it's impregnable off-map box, and the Volga River, while the Red Air Force flies only re-base missions backwards, except when occasionally covering the tanks against any deep Axis LND-3 raids in late June and August. Swallow your pride and forget the flanks of Moscow, leave it to the Moscow MIL and 1st Siberian Army stiffened with engineer detachments to fight to the last tractor lathe as Fortress Rostov, Fortress Sevastopol, and Fortress Leningrad do the same against a Germany bereft of Offensive Chits or Infantry masses; Hitler will promote a political general who rolls a couple 3's in land combat eventually. And have someone with more time than I this evening harvest the Russian tangents in this thread for the Russian thread sometime. And send the Royal Marines, British Parachute Corps, and Army Group Alexander plus Sandhurst's best Tommy formations down the ramps of a couple of AMPHS and into a very weakly defended Italian boot landing right on top of junk Axis units thanks to very offensive unlimited ammunition chit requisitons, under massive RAF cover from air-base Albania as the never-tested Royal Navy at the peak of it's strength dominates the seas covering the Royal Anti-Tank Artillery, Royal Engineers, the pick of the Commonwealth Infantry and Tankforce Wavell's follow-on forces, forcing Balbo's vultures to start worrying about their nest and the CV-laced Yankee armada on the horizon while the Lancasters start threatening to reduce the Wehrmacht's hometowns to rubble.

(in reply to po8crg)
Post #: 135
RE: AI for MWiF-Italy - 12/19/2006 6:08:59 AM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 21954
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: trees
Playing without the rules for breaking the Pact is a completely different game. In RaW WiF you couldn't break the Nazi-Soviet Pact with such massive lending to Italy unless the Russians let you. So one counter-strategy is to go back to playing RaW. Another counter-strategy to such a kitchen-sink plus bathroom-sink Barbarossa is to simply run like hell, forgetting any idea of a line on the Dnepr, leaving Garrison and Militia caltrops all over the place covering factory movements while never ever letting the Russian mechanized forces come within range of very good Axis bombers until you get to the passes in the Caucausus mountains, the swamps south of Archangelsk or it's impregnable off-map box, and the Volga River, while the Red Air Force flies only re-base missions backwards, except when occasionally covering the tanks against any deep Axis LND-3 raids in late June and August. Swallow your pride and forget the flanks of Moscow, leave it to the Moscow MIL and 1st Siberian Army stiffened with engineer detachments to fight to the last tractor lathe as Fortress Rostov, Fortress Sevastopol, and Fortress Leningrad do the same against a Germany bereft of Offensive Chits or Infantry masses; Hitler will promote a political general who rolls a couple 3's in land combat eventually. And have someone with more time than I this evening harvest the Russian tangents in this thread for the Russian thread sometime. And send the Royal Marines, British Parachute Corps, and Army Group Alexander plus Sandhurst's best Tommy formations down the ramps of a couple of AMPHS and into a very weakly defended Italian boot landing right on top of junk Axis units thanks to very offensive unlimited ammunition chit requisitons, under massive RAF cover from air-base Albania as the never-tested Royal Navy at the peak of it's strength dominates the seas covering the Royal Anti-Tank Artillery, Royal Engineers, the pick of the Commonwealth Infantry and Tankforce Wavell's follow-on forces, forcing Balbo's vultures to start worrying about their nest and the CV-laced Yankee armada on the horizon while the Lancasters start threatening to reduce the Wehrmacht's hometowns to rubble.

While not necessarily agreeing with all of this, it is in the spirit of my philosophy about WIF. Any movement towards an extreme (e.g., throwing the kitchen sink against the Russians), leaves a deadly riposte available to the opposing side. If the Axis wants to put everything into attacking the USSR, then gaping holes should be available in numerous other places. The AIO will assess the balance of power in terms of relative air, land, and naval forces (just a few examples) and look to exploit advantages when they present themselves. Comparably, it will seek to minimize losses when at a distinct disadvantage. I believe WIF is a robust enough design to prevent any one strategy guaranteeing success.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to trees)
Post #: 136
RE: AI for MWiF-Italy - 12/19/2006 6:46:01 AM   
trees

 

Posts: 175
Joined: 5/28/2006
Status: offline
Yep, whatever product Ronco makes can be eaten by the Ronco Product Destroyer, which can of course be gotten rid of by the Ronco Product Destroyer Destroyer. (old SCTV reference).

I think elsewhere I suggested that the CW might want to be ready to go with a big CP life-line to Russia rather than such nifty offensive units and a CW O-Chit has been suggested by some players but I have never built one that early. But going for the direct approach on the Italian mainland is probably more fun gaming. And good Russian strategy is to run, run, run away, especially from that clear terrain in Stuka range, river line or not. Russia sitting on the Kalmyk Steppes with four stacks of MECH/ARM, Zhukov (hmm now where did I put that O-Chit Harry gave me, the flank of the German Turkish dream appears to be right in front of me), and some FTRs doesn't look as tough as it still is facing a spread-out German army with a lot of left-over chaos in it's rear. What matters is if the Russians got their factories out but I'm typing in the wrong thread again.

I hope the AI is a gambler on occasion though. The great thing about all-out Barbarossa is that it is fun, and it can work. At least the AI's morale will never break.

An Italian/Axis strategy I like is to borrow some German units to go for French North Africa in 1940 (likely getting stuck in the Moroccan/Algerian border mountains eventually), go conservatively slow in France, take everything in the Med except Gibraltar, wall that off with Me-110's, the Italian NAV forces and any other Axis FTR's with some range also with Frogmen ready to pounce on any lift appearing in the only Allied base in the Med, take the Middle East, maintain pressure in the Atlantic, and then advance in Russia in 1942 far enough to take and hold Minsk, Kiev and Leningrad (via O-chit) to hold their production multiples down for as long as possible while the Axis economy wanes and enjoys emptying it's force pools after low to moderate casualties and a possibly bloodied CW that must re-build for a while from such long run-on sentences.


edit: errr, that should be Axis economy _waxes_, possibly outbuilding the Allies for some additional time than normal thanks to the Iraqi/Persian crude

< Message edited by trees -- 12/19/2006 7:17:56 AM >

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 137
RE: AI for MWiF-Italy - 12/20/2006 3:26:36 AM   
trees

 

Posts: 175
Joined: 5/28/2006
Status: offline
I thought I posted this this morning on my way out the door, but RaW does support the same player controlling Italy and Germany ... in a 2 person game. It's probably somewhat rare for people to play WiF against a single opponent but in the middle of nowhere where I live I feel extremely lucky to have a WiF opponent only 2.5 hours away. A 2 player game is quite different naturally and if you have never tried one, well, AI games will essentially be 2 player games and with MWiF a lot more people will see the differences to your average 5-6 player game.

(in reply to trees)
Post #: 138
RE: AI for MWiF-Italy - 12/20/2006 10:06:13 AM   
Froonp


Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: trees

I thought I posted this this morning on my way out the door, but RaW does support the same player controlling Italy and Germany ... in a 2 person game. It's probably somewhat rare for people to play WiF against a single opponent but in the middle of nowhere where I live I feel extremely lucky to have a WiF opponent only 2.5 hours away. A 2 player game is quite different naturally and if you have never tried one, well, AI games will essentially be 2 player games and with MWiF a lot more people will see the differences to your average 5-6 player game.

It supports it in 2 & 3 players games, because the system is FORCED to support it.
I played 3-4 of 2-3 players games.
If it was a recommended team, it would still be there in 4 and 5 players variations. It is not.

(in reply to trees)
Post #: 139
RE: AI for MWiF-Italy - 12/20/2006 12:43:30 PM   
trees

 

Posts: 175
Joined: 5/28/2006
Status: offline
I just mentioned that because I think the differences in playing the game with different amounts of people is part of what drives this conversation. It is interesting to see what one can do in WiF when in charge of all the Major Powers on one side and I think it is something people are looking forward to in playing MWiF.

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 140
RE: AI for MWiF-Italy - 12/20/2006 2:02:12 PM   
c92nichj


Posts: 440
Joined: 1/14/2005
Status: offline
I think MWIF will have much more cases of 1on1 as PBEM tends to get quite slow if you have many players.

(in reply to trees)
Post #: 141
RE: AI for MWiF-Italy - 7/13/2007 9:18:48 PM   
brian brian

 

Posts: 3168
Joined: 11/16/2005
Status: offline
well this thread certainly detoured somewhat from what the actual Italian strategy should be.

Here is a question for you: what should the Italians build on the first two turns?

(in reply to c92nichj)
Post #: 142
RE: AI for MWiF-Italy - 7/13/2007 9:31:31 PM   
Froonp


Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian

well this thread certainly detoured somewhat from what the actual Italian strategy should be.

Here is a question for you: what should the Italians build on the first two turns?

Planes & Pilots, especially NAVs.

(in reply to brian brian)
Post #: 143
RE: AI for MWiF-Italy - 7/13/2007 9:46:39 PM   
brian brian

 

Posts: 3168
Joined: 11/16/2005
Status: offline
for me it is a hard decision. I also like considering some saving for the Marine Corps, or perhaps the Marine division. I also like to get the Aquila CV started for joint operations with the Japanese in the Indian Ocean in 1942. It is also nice to get some lift started. In my current game I didn't draw the range 6 FTR at start, another wrinkle to the decision. Sometimes I am grateful for the CW starting the war for me so the German loans can start rolling in.

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 144
RE: AI for MWiF-Italy - 7/13/2007 10:41:18 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 21954
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian

for me it is a hard decision. I also like considering some saving for the Marine Corps, or perhaps the Marine division. I also like to get the Aquila CV started for joint operations with the Japanese in the Indian Ocean in 1942. It is also nice to get some lift started. In my current game I didn't draw the range 6 FTR at start, another wrinkle to the decision. Sometimes I am grateful for the CW starting the war for me so the German loans can start rolling in.

Here is the summary of this thread in regards to Italian production. There are still a few scatterred comments that I haven't yet integrated into the AIO Italy strategic plan. But this is 95+% of the comments about Italian production.
================
1.1.5 Areas of conflict and type of combat: land, naval, air, and/or convoys.

1939 - neutral - build major naval if desired plus ARM & FTR & NAV
1940 - maybe France, but definitely in Africa against the British - ARM & FTR & NAV & INF & SUB
1941 - more against the British but beware of the tide turning. - Build INF & SUB & NAV
1942 - start preparing defensive positions. Redeploy Fleet to react to enemy AMPH
1943 - Be prepared to sacrifice your fleet to stop enemy invasions. If you can destroy the first landing you will set their schedule back by six months.
1944/1945 - Hunker down and make him pay for every footstep. Build INF.

1.1.6 Master production plan (MC)

1.1.6.1 Resources and Convoys

Italy starts with 11 factories, 5 resources, and 7 convoys. The factories are all in Italy proper. The resources are located:
∙ 2 RP in Italy.
∙ 1 RP that has to either come by rail through Yugoslavia or by convoy (Italian Coast).
∙ 1 in Sardinia the has to be convoyed (Italian Coast).
∙ Italy gets one of Rumania’s oil points by trade agreement.

This only uses 1 convoy while Italy is at peace and generates 5 PP, which become 3 BP with Italy’s 1939 production multiple of 0.5. In 1940, Italy produces 4 BP, in 1941 - 5 BP, in 1942 - 7 BP, 1943 - 8 BP.

The convoy(s) in the Italian Coast are quite vulnerable to attack.

1.1.6.2 Build Points and Trade Agreements

∙ Italy’s only trade agreement is for the 1 oil point from Rumania each turn.
∙ Once Barbarossa starts, max out Italian production with German loans, but before then loans will probably depend on if the Russians are trying to delay a 1941 Barbarossa.

1.1.6.3 Force Pool, Lend-Lease, and Building Ahead

Italy is an integral part of the EuroAxis. It must not be played independently from Germany, there should be but one strategy and one operational command. In practice, that means that the German player, with advice from the Italian player, should make strategic decisions, decide what and how much Italy builds, decide where Italian units are deployed and decide what action type Italy takes each impulse.

Italy can be a highly valuable partner of the EuroAxis. Germany will take a lot of land impulses with an occasional combined. Italy, on the other hand, can take a mix of combined, naval or air impulses as required. That makes Italian ships and planes more mobile than the German ones, and so Navy and Air Force are what Italy should focus on.

What should be built, and when depends only slightly on the Axis strategy. Certainly the question how many AMPHs (if any) Italy should build does. But most units listed below should be built (or not built) regardless of the Axis strategy.

Building for Italy requires German Lend Lease. What to build early is sufficiently valuable to delay German ARM production. Decide at the start of each turn what Italy should build that turn, and then send lend lease accordingly. Small adjustments may be necessary at the end of the turn in case of losses suffered.
1.1.6.4 Production Priorities
Land

∙ Build all HQs. Badoglio in time for Barbarossa, Cavallero for Summer 1943. The EuroAxis needs a number of HQs for supply in the West. At least 2 are needed in France to watch the coast, and it`s much better using Italians for this than having to leave German HQs behind during Barbarossa. Also, Italian HQs can be useful for reorganizing planes in air impulses. I like to use Balbo in Russia and leave the others in the west.

∙ Keep the MTN and INF divisions on the map, split up corps or rebuild them whenever they are lost. They are useful both for invasions, and as second or third units for places like Malta or Sardinia.

∙ Build the elite GARS from 1940 and 1941. They are very useful to defend places which are liable to be put out of supply like Malta, Sardinia, Copenhagen or Frederickshaven. Germany has not enough bad elite units for these places, and you don`t want to leave a German 7-3 elite INF on garrison duty when you can have an Italian 5-1 elite GAR instead.

∙ Other land units should be built later (1942/1943+) only after the corresponding German units are built. At some time, the Axis wants every land unit, but the German units are both better and less restricted by action limits. However, for late game, the Italian MIL, INF and ENG are a must, and a rich Axis may find value in the MOT, MECH and ARM as well, after Germany has emptied their land force pools.

∙ Do not build the Italian MAR or PARA, since the German ones are better. Only build them if you build the Germans as well and still want more, for a strategy like Sealion or Gibraltar by invasion.

∙ When on the defensive build maximum ground units.

∙ Build INF.

∙ From Mar/Apr 1941, Italy starts producing some land units (mil+gar) to help bolster the defenses, which start arriving in the autumn.


Naval

∙ Build and rebuild the FROGs whenever they are in the Force Pool. They are cheap, and can sometimes be used to good effect against Allied AMPHs preparing to invade.

∙ Build all SUBs, whether you build the Germans or not. The Italians have better action limits, so if you build the German SUBs as well they can search for them in a German land impulse. If you don`t build the Germans, the Italians should still be built as a mobile threat which forces the Allies to at least guard their convoys.

∙ You may or may not want to build one or more AMPH or TRS, depending on your strategy. Building one is prudent though not required with any strategy in case the British nail one with a good search roll. Building more can be interesting in conjunction with a strategy other than Barbarossa 1941, in order to increase transport and invasion capacity in the med (and outside, if you take Gibraltar or Suez). However, if you decide to build any, start them as early as possible to get the most out of them.

∙ Build convoys only when necessary. Try to make the 7 you start with last as long as possible, but if you might run out, rebuild early enough. Having to keep supply with TRS is both embarrassing and costly.

∙ Do not build or repair SCS early, the build points can be spent much better on planes (or German panzers). In 1942/1943, after most of the more important stuff has been built, it may become interesting to repair ships and complete the Impero and Roma to help defend the Italian Coast (or play in the Atlantic if you have Gibraltar), particularly when playing with DSB (?). Again, a judgment call depending on the situation. You may well decide that the BPs can be used better in other ways.

∙ Do not build CVs, they are not worth the expense.

∙ Lay down carriers and new battleships in 1939/early1940 or not at all. Since it takes those units 2 years to get operational then there's no point leaving it any longer.

∙ The Aquila CV sometimes though to have fun with in the mid-game as part of a Mid-East or Gibraltar strategy but it is an expensive investment.


Air

∙ Build all FTRs, every year. Germany never has enough fighters. The Italians are slightly worse than the Germans, but their increased mobility due to the possibility of Italian air impulses makes up for that. In 1943, Italy should advance build the 1944 and 1945 FTRs as well, even before Germany does so.

∙ Build enough NAVs to form a credible threat to invasion fleets. Build points permitting, build most or all Italian NAVs every year until the EuroAxis is losing the air battle in the west.

∙ Build the Stuka in Jan/Feb 1941. It is the most valuable plane the Axis has, as it can be reorganized by Italian ATRs and HQs and fly many times in a summer turn.

∙ Build both ATRs. Italian ATRs are great both for dropping German PARAs and for reorganizing the above mentioned Stuka in an air impulse.

∙ The Piaggios and LND-3 are very nice if you can afford them, which you probably can`t before 1942. Build Italian LND-3 before building German ones. They are slightly worse, but Italy will have less problems with action limits than Germany.

∙ When on the defensive build maximum fighters.

∙ Build all the Italian LND as soon as possible.

∙ Germany's favorite units in Barbarossa are Italian airplanes.

∙ Build the Italian 'Stuka' the LND-2 they start with but without a Pilot in. It's as good as an extra INF corps if trying to break into the French Alps on the surprise impulse. Later it is good to help protect the Italian CPs from CW SUB raids.

Special

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

To avoid this Italy needs' to build Nav and it needs them sooner rather than later closely followed by FTRs's.

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

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

If the German is planning a 1941Gibraltar, Italy builds accordingly: AMPH, ATR, PARA & MAR if possible.



< Message edited by Shannon V. OKeets -- 7/13/2007 10:43:00 PM >


_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to brian brian)
Post #: 145
RE: AI for MWiF-Italy - 7/13/2007 11:00:30 PM   
Froonp


Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline
quote:

Italy is an integral part of the EuroAxis. It must not be played independently from Germany, there should be but one strategy and one operational command. In practice, that means that the German player, with advice from the Italian player, should make strategic decisions, decide what and how much Italy builds, decide where Italian units are deployed and decide what action type Italy takes each impulse.

As I already said, I disagree that Italy is a puppet of Germany.
Even if I agree that Italy is an integral part of the EuroAxis, I maintain that Italy must have its own objectives & goals, and not hesitate to pursue them instead of pursuing Germany's ones.

I agree with "German player, with advice from the Italian player, should make strategic decisions".

I disagree strongly with : "Germany (...) decide what and how much Italy builds, decide where Italian units are deployed and decide what action type Italy takes each impulse".

But I've already said that a hundred time.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 146
RE: AI for MWiF-Italy - 7/13/2007 11:50:33 PM   
composer99


Posts: 2923
Joined: 6/6/2005
From: Ottawa, Canada
Status: offline
I agree with Patrice. Italy has its own strategic goals, and even if those must be subordinated into the overall Axis plan, the Italians should not just be German lapdogs to the point that the Germans are the ones doing all the building and moving.

Generally, as the Italians, I will always try to convince my German allies to think about taking a crack at Gibraltar or Malta (or both) and Suez and getting help from them, if necessary, to accomplish these.

(Note that trying to capture Gib may not necessarily involve going through Spain - but making CW go to the effort of defending it may take its attention away from the Battle of the Atlantic, the battle in the Med, strategic air war over Germany, and whatnot.)

Seizing Gibraltar without going through Spain is difficult, but it uses a lot less assets, could probably be done simultaneously with a Barb campaign, and requires three things to go right - Gib is cut out of supply, one or both corps are flipped, and the invasion goes well. As a pre-req you will probably need to conquer Algeria (and maybe Morocco) instead of having them go Vichy.

On the plus side, depending on how well or poorly Gib is defended, the Italians might be able to take a try at it, with limited German help, in late 1940; then they could do it again, once or twice, in 1941, and, depending on the strategic situation, they could even try again in '42 if they rebuild the Marines/Paras lost before.

Capturing Malta is invaluable to the defence of Italy, as long as Sardinia and the NW coast of Italy are well-defended, as suddenly the Allies do not have a great port adjacent to the Italian Coast sea area.

Capturing Suez can, of course, lead to expansion in the Middle East (aligning Iraq/Persia or seizing them from the USSR, grabbing Saudi Arabia) and to operations in the Indian Ocean. Depending on how Barbarossa is set up, it can lead to bringing Turkey in through the back door.

_____________________________

~ Composer99

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 147
RE: AI for MWiF-Italy - 7/14/2007 12:27:34 AM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 21954
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp
quote:

Italy is an integral part of the EuroAxis. It must not be played independently from Germany, there should be but one strategy and one operational command. In practice, that means that the German player, with advice from the Italian player, should make strategic decisions, decide what and how much Italy builds, decide where Italian units are deployed and decide what action type Italy takes each impulse.

As I already said, I disagree that Italy is a puppet of Germany.
Even if I agree that Italy is an integral part of the EuroAxis, I maintain that Italy must have its own objectives & goals, and not hesitate to pursue them instead of pursuing Germany's ones.

I agree with "German player, with advice from the Italian player, should make strategic decisions".

I disagree strongly with : "Germany (...) decide what and how much Italy builds, decide where Italian units are deployed and decide what action type Italy takes each impulse".

But I've already said that a hundred time.

The list I presented is a collection of advice from forum members. There are many places where directly contradictory advice exist. In fact, I actively encourage that so the AIO will have a variety of choices and not be too predictable.

More work remains to be done with this section of the Italian AIO. In particular, the Italian builds should be derived from the overall strategic plan for the EuroAxis. So, the different strategic plans need to be laid out first (in broad scope) and then details like what to build can be defined. In response to Brian's question about what Italy should build, I thought the summary/collection would be useful.

======

By the way, one of the things I do when editing the AIO posts is to remove redundant comments (so if you say something 6 times it only appears once) and to remove concillatory phrases like "in my opinion", "I have found it best to", and so on. The result is to make the statements much starker and thereby seem more forceful. For example, "In my opinion it is best to build the Italian fighters" becomes "Build fighters." That is all I need to write the AIO rules.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 148
RE: AI for MWiF-Italy - 7/14/2007 1:44:10 AM   
wosung

 

Posts: 688
Joined: 7/18/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

Italy is an integral part of the EuroAxis. It must not be played independently from Germany, there should be but one strategy and one operational command. In practice, that means that the German player, with advice from the Italian player, should make strategic decisions, decide what and how much Italy builds, decide where Italian units are deployed and decide what action type Italy takes each impulse.

As I already said, I disagree that Italy is a puppet of Germany.
Even if I agree that Italy is an integral part of the EuroAxis, I maintain that Italy must have its own objectives & goals, and not hesitate to pursue them instead of pursuing Germany's ones.

I agree with "German player, with advice from the Italian player, should make strategic decisions".

I disagree strongly with : "Germany (...) decide what and how much Italy builds, decide where Italian units are deployed and decide what action type Italy takes each impulse".

But I've already said that a hundred time.


I can only second that.

Even with DAK and the Italians in mind: The only real lasting strategic coop in WW2 was Anglo-American. The rest of the powers just didn't and couldn't act as team players - in end because of their ideologies.

Regards

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 149
RE: AI for MWiF-Italy - 7/14/2007 10:20:32 AM   
Neilster


Posts: 3037
Joined: 10/27/2003
From: Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: wosung


quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

Italy is an integral part of the EuroAxis. It must not be played independently from Germany, there should be but one strategy and one operational command. In practice, that means that the German player, with advice from the Italian player, should make strategic decisions, decide what and how much Italy builds, decide where Italian units are deployed and decide what action type Italy takes each impulse.

As I already said, I disagree that Italy is a puppet of Germany.
Even if I agree that Italy is an integral part of the EuroAxis, I maintain that Italy must have its own objectives & goals, and not hesitate to pursue them instead of pursuing Germany's ones.

I agree with "German player, with advice from the Italian player, should make strategic decisions".

I disagree strongly with : "Germany (...) decide what and how much Italy builds, decide where Italian units are deployed and decide what action type Italy takes each impulse".

But I've already said that a hundred time.


I can only second that.

Even with DAK and the Italians in mind: The only real lasting strategic coop in WW2 was Anglo-American. The rest of the powers just didn't and couldn't act as team players - in end because of their ideologies.

Regards

But how do we know that would be the case again? We're not replaying WW2. The circumstances in every MWiF game will differ and perhaps the politics will too. Quite possibly not for various cultural and ideological reasons (as you mentioned) but I think it should be as open as possible.

When Italy is played by an individual it is highly likely that that player will pursue their own goals but otherwise perhaps it is better that Italy works to maximize victory for the Axis. Just something to think about.

Cheers, Neilster

(in reply to wosung)
Post #: 150
Page:   <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> AI Opponent Discussion >> RE: AI for MWiF-Italy Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   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

0.195