Allied Torch Landings.....Will they ever stop?

[unmerged(19006)]

I've been playing the Road to war scenarion in 1.06 and stumbled on a few issues. First of all I got around the negative oil script, then the Marseille/Toulon Allied landings in Vichy that can't be fixed methinks so I resorted in having 12 division garisons around them. However the Allies have amassed a huge number of troops there (55 divisions in 1941 plus 12 fighter groups) so they are bound to break through
On top of these, the Allies keep landing in North Africa namely Oran, Casablanca and Tunis. To this point in the game I have to keep 5 Infantry divisions as garrisons to each province in North Africa that has a beach and a rapid reaction force of a couple of Panzer Divisions. I think that Barbarossa will be a tad difficult with -25 Infantry and 4 Panzer divisions.....I really enjoyed the upgraded AI in 1.06 but in some cases I have the feeling that the AI is just taking the pi$$ at me! Russian attacks with 50+ divisions from 3 sides, the Allied landings, 20 Brit divisions in Suez.....

 

[Tamerlan]

I've been playing the Road to war scenarion in 1.06 and stumbled on a few issues. First of all I got around the negative oil script, then the Marseille/Toulon Allied landings in Vichy that can't be fixed methinks so I resorted in having 12 division garisons around them. However the Allies have amassed a huge number of troops there (55 divisions in 1941 plus 12 fighter groups) so they are bound to break through
On top of these, the Allies keep landing in North Africa namely Oran, Casablanca and Tunis. To this point in the game I have to keep 5 Infantry divisions as garrisons to each province in North Africa that has a beach and a rapid reaction force of a couple of Panzer Divisions. I think that Barbarossa will be a tad difficult with -25 Infantry and 4 Panzer divisions.....I really enjoyed the upgraded AI in 1.06 but in some cases I have the feeling that the AI is just taking the pi$$ at me! Russian attacks with 50+ divisions from 3 sides, the Allied landings, 20 Brit divisions in Suez.....

1.06 exe has created a bug in the independence command (so to speak there is an exe flaw which results in Vichy not having the french troops). For the rest it is WAD.

 

[unmerged(14519)]

Hmm..i think that the AI landings need to be tweaked somewhat. In my latest game, the allies have wasted atleast 50 divisions trying to capture Tirana ( I think thats the name...its the northern Albanian province). Every time they lose against my 10 divisions garrisoned there, in the mountains, with costal forts. But they keep on trying, its stupid. Is there a way to make the AI atleast attempt to attack the players weaker beaches? There are several beaches in the meditteranian that the allies could have captured instead, were they could have won with their 10 division landing forces, but no, every time almost they land in Tirana.

 

[Tamerlan]

Hmm..i think that the AI landings need to be tweaked somewhat. In my latest game, the allies have wasted atleast 50 divisions trying to capture Tirana ( I think thats the name...its the northern Albanian province). Every time they lose against my 10 divisions garrisoned there, in the mountains, with costal forts. But they keep on trying, its stupid. Is there a way to make the AI atleast attempt to attack the players weaker beaches? There are several beaches in the meditteranian that the allies could have captured instead, were they could have won with their 10 division landing forces, but no, every time almost they land in Tirana.

The allies have a set of targets in the mediterranean, with the same priority. It does not try to take Tirana more than others. Just ur game I guess. Tirana is intersting because Italy lacks steel and Tirana has plenty of it. But most beaches in the mediterranean are targeted too...

 

[unmerged(21682)]

Then what about the suicide landings? For instance, Italy triens to take over valetta with 1-3 divisioner about 200 times. In mp, this is quite annoying for the Ger player since italy runs completely out of divisions after a while... Same thing goes for canada that uses similar tactics (1 div vs 3 with costal def) in northern france. This has to stop, it ruins the game...

 

[unmerged(11427)]

The allies have a set of targets in the mediterranean, with the same priority. It does not try to take Tirana more than others. Just ur game I guess. Tirana is intersting because Italy lacks steel and Tirana has plenty of it. But most beaches in the mediterranean are targeted too...

The problem is that AI still chooses it's target randomly. In order for AI to recognize where to strike succesfully it has to follow certain rules. Landing without air superiority is sucide (if the target has significant forces in it). AI should also be aware that it's convoys have to be protected both from sea and air attacks.
So the choice would be something like this:
1) Do I have (or can easily establish) air superiority in the landing province
and all neighbournig provinces?
2) Can I send in reinforcments and supply easily (without travelling in transports
for thousends of miles)?
3) How strong is the opposition?
4) Is there a possibility to break out of the beachheads (how well defended
are neghbouring provinces)?

This is what the human player would do. Assigning scores to points 1) to 4) AI would calculate where it should attempt the landing. Some randomness should be included so suicide (and surprise) landings can occur.

Hopefully, AI wolud act as follows:
Establish air superiority. Bomb the defending troops. Land. Kill the opposing forces and attempt to break out inland. Bring in supplies and reinforcements.
In the best scenario they might even use paras to capture inland provinces.

 

[Tamerlan]

1. Exe changes and not small ones. Air AI is good but it completely lacks parameters and algorithms to imporve its efficiency.
2. I would rewrite that You can make the AI put 100 div in Southampton but it will still initiate landing from Washington. Not sure that variable about the range changes things a lot...
3. That the AI should be able to compute, and if it does not, well there might be a bug around.
4. Also taken into account. If it does not work, well bugged...

 

[unmerged(11427)]

I placed those rules in order of importance (for me anyway).

If there is no air superiority or at least considerable air support, you
can easily sink transports and inavsion is doomed. Even if they land
you can bomb the landing troops on the bechheads without air opposition.

So, if AI can't provide adequate air protection for it's troops all invasions
are FUBAR.

The second part, about quickly deploying reinforcements is more conserned
about time than distance penalties. If the defender sends in reinforcements,
the invader has to be able to strengthen his forces quickly.


If you say other two rules are implemented, I believe you. I didn't mean
that they are buggy, I just think it should be third priority.
Same for the rule number 4.

Anyway, those rules are just ideas and can be improved. Problem is, as you say,
can those rules be implemented.

I don't know how the game engine works, but it doesn't seem impossible.
The most important factor is AI's abilty to evaluate the air threat. If it does
succesfully, all other rules might become more effective, if allready implemented
in the game.

 

[unmerged(27667)]

Lives matter to the Democrats

Dieppe proved to be a useful learning experience, for one thing it taught the allies not to waste lives .

So, watching the allies throw countless 1-3 division invasions into Europe over and over again in my current game, despite their losses, is a tad disappointing.

Further, the main criterion for attempting an invasion in almost all cases was air superiority. Indeed, even when carrier support could win air superiority the allies were still far too sensitive about casualities in general to rely upon it and preferred massed land based air superiority.

This meant that invasions generally took place when a) they were part of a significant campaign and b) when air superiority was achieved.

In other words, the Democratic AI should not throw lives away on futile raids and should (in probability) only invade a location that is within range of land-based air.

It is no surprise that Torch took place close to Gibraltar and that Sicily was invaded after the Germans were kicked out of Africa followed by an invasion of mainland Italy.

Similarly, the island hopping campaign in the Pacific was directly associated with capturing salient air-bases that provided stepping stones to the next invasion point.

Of course, the closer the supply source was to the invasion point the better.

In summary, an AI (something I know quite a bit about without boring you with details) that followed a similar approach would be fantastic.

Of course, it would be nice if a player driven democracy had similar limitations.

 

[unmerged(12760)]

AI could try landings in small numbers only against german allies ( italy ) because against german troops htey usually lose. AI should make note of how much divs are in a prov before attacking, say if i have a 7 panther div army in lille AI should not attack there, i believe the resistance informations and air recon of the allies was quite good enough to make note of such concentrations

invasions are better than in earlier versions.

also ißm not that unhappy seeing for example the brits waste some of their troops because they have quite much of them ( this is core ). also the americans have very much mech + marines in later stage of the game. they usually do 1 or 2 landings which huge numbers that succes if the german player has not good reserves in france or is has guarded the beach with allied troops ( you get no note of allied troops that are attacked, so if you are busy in the east, you can get evil surprises if not watching the west closely ).

also the allied AI usually takes a bridgehead in italy if you have not german troops there as "fire department" !

 

[unmerged(27667)]

A simple rule of the thumb would be invasions not being allowed at a distance greater then, for example three zones (including the target zone) from the port of origin.

Of course, I have yet to learn the game well and this comment is born out of experience with some old board-games, one of which (appropriately named World War II) was very strict on how far a fleet of transports that were part of an invasion force was allowed to travel. In addition, aircraft exerted zones of control over their surrounded territory that interdicted supply. This resulted in it being impossible to invade in zones were your force would be interdicted.

Sorry, I'm just an old grognard at heart.