Operation Sealion On Turn One!

@Obergruppenfuhrer:

“The race for quality has no finish line- so technically, it’s more like a death march.”

That’s hilarious LT!!

I got all of these quotes from here:    http://despair.com/

They have a line of “demotivators.”  The creator modeled them after the successories you see in fancy offices.  He says that true motivation comes from within so only companies with a band-aid fix it approach and disposable income use them.  (like large US car companies and banks  :lol:)

@Linkon:

Newbies will commonly separate armor (1 space back) from infantry due to the perception that inf is better on defence.

The reality of the game for veterans is that the biggest stack rules, so the better action is to place both together and everything else you got into the biggest stack you can make.  The armor still has the 2 move reach for rapid deployment on your next turn.

A similar thing happens with bombers and fighters, but not as much.

yes the bigger stack rules but you can always avoid them. depends on whether you’re fighting a war of attrition. japan should realize it’s going to lose (in beginning) most of its land territory because it needs to consolidate–as you allude to–all of its forces on one territory. otherwise they would lose the units AND the territory.

True, the Allies can’t do “anything” or make outragegous attacks or make strange buys, but you can get away with a lot of bad habits if there is no bid to worry about.

I agree with everyone who said start simplier and work from that.

But I think the Rus-Ger dynamic really gives a pretty look at the overall game.  And for an AI, I don’t think looking at units is the best way to start.  I think LL rules  where an
“aggressive AI” attacks with a remainder of 2
“mederate AI” attacks with rem of 3
“defensive AI” attacks with rem of 4

Would work for combat purposes.  although that can easily be exploited by a human.

But that kind of goes out the window without a goal in mind, which mean holding specific territories should be priority 1.
And for that I suggest re-valuing the key ones, similar to concept IPC value but more pronounced and strategic.

Here are the key territories and my proposed Values:

Germany
Ger - 20
EE - 12
Ukr - 6
WE - 6
SE - 4
Fin - 2

Russia
Mos - 20
Kar - 12
Cauc - 6
Eve - 2
Novo - 8
Kaz - 2

Thus you get 12 territories for a total of 100 pts.  So a calculation at the end of each rd of who holds the most points could be shown to have the lead.

Ex, Ger lost WE and Fin but holds SE, Ger, EE, Ukr, Japan took Eve and Kaz But Russia holds Novo, Mos, Cauc so the Axis total would be 46 and the Allies would be 54.  Showing the Allies leading the game.  which I think could hold up since post Japan’s turn Russia still holds Novo.

A secondary equation tied to this that adds up all units within these key territories and calculates their defensive value and offensive value.  Since form all of these territories you can get to Kar, you could probably calculate how many turns of purchases it would take to:
(for side that does not own kar)
1)  be able to attack Kar and take
2)  be able to attack kar and take and HOLD from a counter.
(side that does own kar)
3)  continue to be able to hold kar
4)  find ter with most enemies units, is an attack or strafe benefical (based on LL attack rules)

Example, If units are equal at 100 Axis and 100 Allies, but Allies earn 80 and Axis earn 60.  It wouldn’t be to hard to say, well in 10 turns the Allies will 900 pts in unit strength vs. 700.  Perhaps that gives the Allies the needed adv to attack and hold.

I think the first order should be to set up the inital “rally points” or key territories that MUST be held.  But I do think it would be easy for a human to exploit.

The real adv for the AI would be it could calculate it’s army strength much further down the road provided it was set right.  Which I admit would be very hard.  But I think if you work with some initial parameters you might be able to do a pretty good job.  I’m thinking if you assume all other territories except the initial 12 I laid out are “bonus”, you could then have the AI “assume” it’s income for 5, 6, 7 turns based on the LL playing style you give it.  Yet when their turn actually comes around they maybe able to buy some thing more b/c they hold half of Afr as well.  But for your initial Calcs you don’t really need to take all that stuff into account.  I think Less would be more in this case and would actual build a strong AI.

I’m just thinking of how I play now and I treat everything but those 12 ter as secondary, and it works for me, Infact I even treat half of those 12 as secondary.  Position I think would be a greater asset for a strong AI, not IPCs or even army strengh (if it is out of position).

@theSexualHarrassmentPanda:

The extra trn allows attacks on both AES and Syr. The trn is only a nuisance after that. GBR fleet builds will be slowed down by the 2 Bmbs. And soon, the shift in cash flows to Ger.

Unless the Allies either land immediately into WAfr and then slow down Germany from completely consolidating their hold on Africa. What’s more the Germans can’t really afford to send more inf into Africa than a typicl PAfrica bid would do. Like I said I never mind a G1 purchase of a transport b/c it is easy to kill and therefore a waste of money. What’s more Germany really does need men in Europe if they are to ever WIN the game. Just mastering cash flow will not lead to certain victory.

I normally play RR, so no bids. The games posted indicate that PAf is superior to trn buy. Allies usu do not have enough ships to safely land in Afr until round 3 or 4.

Of course, opposition deployments and battle results should weigh in on any purchase decision.

The problem I see with OP Sea Lion is that the UK just isn’t anywhere near as big a threat as Russia is to Germany. Yes, the Germans can overcome the threat easily, but they still need a few turns to do so. Until then (and assuming you didn’t roll only 6’s when attacking the Brit fleet) you can pretty much ignore the UK until you can reduce the defending units of Moscow enough that Japan can take it before USSR can rebuild. (Yea, that means that Japan gets the money, but so what? Build only infnatry in Euro-Asia and Africa and wait until the Japs can take the US.)

I would think this would be the other way around. First, the Japanese high command was not averse to continuing their war with America. In order to understand this, you have to know high factor national honor is to the Japanese and their Code of the Bushido. Even after the first atomic bomb was dropped, the military leaders still believed with the right combination of AA guns that such bombers and bombs could be hit while still in the sky. The Japanese even experimented with sound vibrations in which to knock down enemy craft! However, with the Russians, the Japanese were caught in a totally different situation. The Japanese knew that if they capitulated, the time would come where the Americans would eventually leave. If the Russians had occupied Japan, the Japanese knew that they might never leave. This largely mirrors real life as Russian and Japan are still disputing over some of the Northern Islands of Japan since the end of WWII.

If the attacker hits with any unit, the defenders chooses the appropriate number of units and moves them behind the casualty line. The defender then rolls for his units; the attacker then chooses the appropriate number of casualties (from any of his units, just like the defender) and removes them from play. The defender then removes his casualties.

[ This Message was edited by: bossk on 2002-01-10 18:01 ]