Don't Feel Sorry For The AI

[Charles22]

I now know better. My 3rd battle in 9/39 Poland was so bad I thought I stood a chance to lose, though I came in with a fairly substabtial draw (which I consider a defeat). I was stupid enough to play with a visibility of only 7. I doubt I will ever let that happen again. The AI Poles were advancing on me, and the following is the reason you should not feel sorry for the AI at all.

For artillery, I had 4 core 100mm offboard guns (which didn't counterfire a single gun, but then I figured later it was better being used for regular bombardment, as the AI couldn't possibly counterfire it if fired on the field, and probably wouldn't reserve anything for counterfiring anyway) and 2 150IG's and 2 75IG's. Wow, 8 whole guns. What did the AI pick? 60 75mm guns, only four of which were onboard. There was some other artillery but I didn't bother counting them.

The guns are what mostly gets me here, as having that many guns going off gets to be a real nuisance irrespective of what damage it may cause, but this battle also rather epitomized how lopsided things can often get in favor of the AI. In most situations at this close range (7 max) my AFV's would very often not hit on the first shot (probably 80% misses), while the Polish ones did, often destroying, with something close to a 50% ratio. For a couple of times I noticed the percentage on one of my tanks, it would state 95% and miss, then fire 75% and miss. Then of course the AI fires one time in response and kaboom! Naturally I didn't see the AI percentages but that's pretty close to how the whole battle went, where the AI was hitting and often killing 50% of the time, whereas my shots were almost always over 50% and were hitting more like 25%, especially if it was the first shot. It seemed like a ripoff. So yeah, guys, don't feel any mercy for those bastards. It's hard to believe I destroyed 93 tanks to my 21 lost (I have between 33-38 core AFV's).

Next battle you ask? Why, the 4th battle is again in 9/39 Poland (the mass grave of the Wehrmacht). I can only wonder how many lovely polish battles 10/39 will generate (60 battle campaign) if I ever get there.

[Ramm]

What forces did you buy exactly and how big the map? Your description of a massive Polish/Nazi tank battle sounds like the start of a fun campaign After I get done my homework tonight I was thinking about starting a SPWW2 campaign

Cheers,

Andrew

[Charles22]

Originally Posted by Ramm

What forces did you buy exactly and how big the map? Your description of a massive Polish/Nazi tank battle sounds like the start of a fun campaign After I get done my homework tonight I was thinking about starting a SPWW2 campaign

Cheers,

Andrew

I play on a 200X130. This makes something of a more mobile defense very necessary. When visibility is worse it's more crucial. I may had destroyed all of his tanks and despite him losing some 1247 men he still had a minimum of 15 of those large infantry squads that hadn't even been touched. I give the AI always the tank heavy option.

Basically I start out the long campaign as germany with 60 battles, with the most disadvantageous repair option (-20%) using like 3300pts starting out. Roughly speaking, this is the force composition:
1 infantry company, including changing 1 into engineers and 1 into SS inf.
2 tank companies, composing of 30-33 AFV's total
1 engineer and 1 Brandenburger platoons
1 HMG section
8 SPAA's
1 AA section
3 37mm ATG's
1 scout section
1 HT platoon
1 88ATG section
4 100mm offboard guns
2 onboard 150IG's
2 onboard 75IG's
1 highest rated sniper

I have on any given campaign a variance between 110-130 units (USSR usually having more units). It's meant to simulate the mobile defense tactics employed on the late eastern front by germany. With that much height and not a lot of depth, it is a very fascinating game of trying to predict when you vacate, or near vacate areas in order to help where the enemy may be concentrating an attack. Unlike in the battles measuering only 100 hexes high, you have to be a much more proficient predictor of just what is needed where, as help takes often much longer to come. I have tanks which in some cases are going a full 6 or 7 turns before they can help in the area needed. This also helps teach the value of any amount of delaying that one can employ that often wouldn't matter on smaller maps.

On the flip side, it makes defense that much harder, in theory, for the AI, but if you attack pretty much across a broad front, this will weaken your attack a bit. I tend to have hard thrusts with my two tank companies, aided with some infantry, and then cover all the other territory to fight in either adequate to what I can expect, or inadequate. The idea is to have every attack where there is a bit of danger, but also parts where there's lots of success, so that you can see, if the weak areas face a lot of opposition, or even a determined counter-attack, then you have to start bleeding off the main thrusts. I also always play with clustered objectives, which is what the AI is geared for defending, which in theory should also help make the AI's defense easier, because the flanks won't need to be defended as much as with grapeshot objectives, and be less piecemeal. The AI may place the defense the exact same way for grapeshot, which of course means there's some objectives which would be easy takes. For the human, I guess it can make defense more difficult playing grapeshot, but since the Ai isn't geared for grapeshot defense, it probably isn't geared for grapeshot attack, though if you're like me you're determined not to lose a single one of them, even temporarily (unfortunately I lost about 60% of them in this clustered objectives battle, and the battle went the full 49 turns).

I played one battle of SPWAW, and this game doesn't show it would have a problem duplicating that stunt, but I had faced like 150 of the French S-35's. Talk about trembling! I destroyed maybe 30 of them, and damaged quite a few more, before the French surrendered (I was being assaulted). If I wanted to fight it out, he could had possibly had destroyed every one of my units with such a force, but I plugged away enough that he gave up. France may be the only nation that will be that well off and still surrender. SPWAW wouldn't let me have the sort of maps I use in this game though. Oh man, facing 150 S-35's would be much worse with this map.

[gila]

Originally Posted by Charles22

I now know better. My 3rd battle in 9/39 Poland was so bad I thought I stood a chance to lose, though I came in with a fairly substabtial draw (which I consider a defeat). I was stupid enough to play with a visibility of only 7. I doubt I will ever let that happen again. The AI Poles were advancing on me, and the following is the reason you should not feel sorry for the AI at all.

For artillery, I had 4 core 100mm offboard guns (which didn't counterfire a single gun, but then I figured later it was better being used for regular bombardment, as the AI couldn't possibly counterfire it if fired on the field, and probably wouldn't reserve anything for counterfiring anyway) and 2 150IG's and 2 75IG's. Wow, 8 whole guns. What did the AI pick? 60 75mm guns, only four of which were onboard. There was some other artillery but I didn't bother counting them.

The guns are what mostly gets me here, as having that many guns going off gets to be a real nuisance irrespective of what damage it may cause, but this battle also rather epitomized how lopsided things can often get in favor of the AI. In most situations at this close range (7 max) my AFV's would very often not hit on the first shot (probably 80% misses), while the Polish ones did, often destroying, with something close to a 50% ratio. For a couple of times I noticed the percentage on one of my tanks, it would state 95% and miss, then fire 75% and miss. Then of course the AI fires one time in response and kaboom! Naturally I didn't see the AI percentages but that's pretty close to how the whole battle went, where the AI was hitting and often killing 50% of the time, whereas my shots were almost always over 50% and were hitting more like 25%, especially if it was the first shot. It seemed like a ripoff. So yeah, guys, don't feel any mercy for those bastards. It's hard to believe I destroyed 93 tanks to my 21 lost (I have between 33-38 core AFV's).

Next battle you ask? Why, the 4th battle is again in 9/39 Poland (the mass grave of the Wehrmacht). I can only wonder how many lovely polish battles 10/39 will generate (60 battle campaign) if I ever get there.

Sounds like you got some rough handling by AI Arty.
I am assuming you went in with a core value of 2000 or more?
And did polish ATR teams and infrt. deal alot of grief? been there and done before
Try keeping your core low until you get to france .
High force in poland means alot of infrt.,Arty. and thier spotters

[Charles22]

I started out with 3300pts.

Oh I know the more points the more likely to see artillery, especially if it's the most expensive unit amid countless ranks that are very cheap, I just had never seen so much of it at one time. They were very annoying, and though I think their kill/damage ratio might had been fine, they did seem to find my troops in circumstances which appeared to not be entirely a matter of them not having some homing device. If it had not been for my other games I would believe they did have one. Their true annoyance was just seeing so many guns going off every blasted turn, not 60 every turn needless to say, such that so much time was consumed seeing them fall so much. I was so annoyed by it I removed the blast radius option, which delays things further. Fast artillery is a bit of a joke, so I surely wouldn't consdier that.

This is probably the first battle against the Poles, in so many versions of winSPWW2 against the Poles, and the vast majority of my battles have been germany vs poland, that I have seen probably more than 30 enemy guns.

I'm not interested in keeping my core smaller until France. I'm basically trying to start off with a core, in terms of number of units, which I will keep throughout the entire war, so that way I get more units experienced quicker. My point total is pretty high (but the map height very large) is due also to my picking a good deal of my AFV's as medium tanks starting out. There is no way I could cover 200 hexes with only 2000 german points, as the 3300 spent as I spent it, is difficult enough at times (the USSR might manage fine with 2000 though). This battle, due mostly to very poor visibility, proves that the map and the amount of units I use with it can turn pretty sharply to my disadvantage, at least enough to make me worry that I might lose (score me: 5400 AI:3507), so at least the way I have things set up, it isn't instant decisive victory all the time.

[gila]

Originally Posted by Charles22

Basically I start out the long campaign as germany with 60 battles, with the most disadvantageous repair option (-20%) using like 3300pts starting out. Roughly speaking, this is the force composition:
1 infantry company, including changing 1 into engineers and 1 into SS inf.

2 tank companies, composing of 30-33 AFV's total
Why so many tanks?

1 engineer and
1 Brandenburger platoons
Brandenburgers cost more i'd go for regs
1 HMG section

8 SPAA's
worthless in poland as the poland AF is done already by sept '39.

1 AA section
Unnecessary in poland

3 37mm ATG's
just a waste

1 scout section
1 HT platoon

1 88ATG section
What targets to shoot at?

4 100mm offboard guns
2 onboard 150IG's
2 onboard 75IG's
1 highest rated sniper

How many airstrikes also?

Your wasting alot of pts, giving the poles extra pts. and whining that it's unfair.

[Lt. Ketch]

Originally Posted by Charles22

I'm basically trying to start off with a core, in terms of number of units, which I will keep throughout the entire war, so that way I get more units experienced quicker.

My experience has been that the more units you have the slower they get experience.

Now I openly acknowledge that I do not know all the ways that units can get experience and so could be completely off. An example. There are three enemy units and the potential expereinced that can be gained by defeating them is 100 points. If I attack each unit with three of my own, then that 100 points gets spilt between 9 units, where as if I use the same three units to defeat all three of them, it will boost them up higher quicker. I realize that if you face an enemy that outnumbers yours, this logic doesn't apply nearly as much because ALL of you units will be wading through troops and gaining experience.

I also realize that if you put all your eggs in one basket, or exp into one platoon, a well placed artillary barrage will destory all your work. So I believe I can understand what you're looking to accomplish. A experienced but not intirely unexpendable force. You mentioned cutting back in France, do you indent to delete your losest experienced units?

Back on topic - I never feel sorry for the AI. Don and Andy have created a very good warmind that I only have the upmost respect for. As I get better I may end up beating it more often and easier, but I hope I never underestimate it.

[Charles22]

Originally Posted by Lt. Ketch

My experience has been that the more units you have the slower they get experience.

Now I openly acknowledge that I do not know all the ways that units can get experience and so could be completely off. An example. There are three enemy units and the potential expereinced that can be gained by defeating them is 100 points. If I attack each unit with three of my own, then that 100 points gets spilt between 9 units, where as if I use the same three units to defeat all three of them, it will boost them up higher quicker. I realize that if you face an enemy that outnumbers yours, this logic doesn't apply nearly as much because ALL of you units will be wading through troops and gaining experience.

I also realize that if you put all your eggs in one basket, or exp into one platoon, a well placed artillary barrage will destory all your work. So I believe I can understand what you're looking to accomplish. A experienced but not intirely unexpendable force. You mentioned cutting back in France, do you indent to delete your losest experienced units?

Back on topic - I never feel sorry for the AI. Don and Andy have created a very good warmind that I only have the upmost respect for. As I get better I may end up beating it more often and easier, but I hope I never underestimate it.

I can't make heads or tails of your observation. I can't see how 3 units attacking in any form would split 9 ways experience gain. It either goes to the unit delivering the final blow, as kills do, or they split up equally between the three. If what you are saying is that with a army of 9 units, ALL experience gains always goes to all of them, and that therefore an entire army of only three units would be bigger experience gains, that is correct math, but you forgot a huge part of the equation.

If I understand you correctly, I do not think you are correct, but let me continue as though you are. In this last game, we know I had 93 AFV kills, so obviously 93 experience gains (that is if every kill is an experience gain of some sort) were the minimum possible expereince gained. If you had 3 units, well look at all the experience you would gain compared to a greater number of units, right? Problem is, you will never get 93 kills with either 3 or 9 units. As well, if you get 9 kills with 9 units, and I get 93 kills with 92 units, then I come off better than you per unit experience gain.

Now, perhaps there has been a detailed explanation of how experience gains, be that in the manual or not, and for my part, I just get as many kills as possible and hope that helps. However, there are plenty of units that don't even have a kill that gain more than the ones with numerous kills. Also, there are units who seem to have not fired a single round, whom advance as well (if so, that would destroy the notion that guns fired, even with no kills, would gain experience alone - not that anyone has that theory).

You mentioned cutting back in France, do you indent to delete your losest experienced units?

Hmmm, you do give me interesting food for thought. I had never considered that. But I don't think it ever pays off. for example: a PZIVB gets destroyed last battle in Poland and I replace it with another. Suppose the new unit comes in with 60 exp. I could gamble points away after that first battle in France, assuming this unit survives, and then buy another tank in the hopes of maybe getting a 75exp crew.

Otherwise, I don't see any point in deleting any. As well, I have not a lot of idea about how exp is gained, but I can tell you that number of kills can matter, and that units gain them without even firing a round. Inevitably, even if you are and I are totally blind to how they gain exp, they will, because if what I just said is true, they will all be flagged for gain before long. If you have a unit in that army for say 4 battles, the chances of him being of higher exp than the highest rated new unit of the same type is very high. In truth, ALL surviving units may gain exp, but inbetween battles we only are aware (onscreen at the top left) of the ones who gained in experience type, like experienced to elite. If one keeps a log of each units ranking one would find out quick enough if all survivors gain exp of some amount.

[Charles22]

Originally Posted by gila

How many airstrikes also?

Your wasting alot of pts, giving the poles extra pts. and whining that it's unfair.

There are so many tanks for a number of reasons. Foremost because I find playing with a minimal amount of tanks VERY boring (the enemy is given the tank heavy option as well). Also, as I explained earlier, I am trying to create something of the feel of a force similar to a late east front german force, one which will often need mobility on the defensive to have much hope of holding, as my maps are very high (200) and somewhat narrow (130) such that the enemy is the quicker upon me, and I have more territory to cover up and down. The side benefit to this, is that you have a map so tall, that you end up a lot of times with almost 2 or 3 separate armies, instead of just 1 or 2, because even the longest ranging AFV guns in great visibility can't pretty much dominate the board by taking up basically one or two central positions.

I do have some regular infantry but I think having a dominant infantry unit is worth their extra price. How many infantry units have both "2" LMG's and a satchel charge? Or 2 LMG's and a sniper rifle? And these guys are very experienced, so you can get them to elite in no time.

8 SPAA's worthless? Truly you do not appreciate the advanatges of long standing units. It's a build for the future it is, because 100+ rated SPAA when germany is the one being air attacked, is far better than 60exp SPAA bought on the fly. Besides, even on the matter of Poland itself in a mere 7 rated visibility, these guys proved invaluable. Now that isn't the normal case, but I let my emotion get the better of me, and put them in range so close (as 7 is close) that some of them were engaged, by infantry. I usually pretty much hide them for the first battles, but will use them for distanced infantry support when enemy planes cannot be found. Though they have no armor, and that's why I am very cautious with them, they must had destroyed at least 6 tanks, and I lost only one of them. I don't think I lost a single man on the others. This was partly sue to the enemy tansk preferring to engage my AFV's though the SPAA was about. I was getting far more reliable kills with them, but it was very close range. Every unit in my army has a purpose, though it may not show up in every battle (most notably my ATG's).

37mm ATG's a waste? Well, in this battle you couldn't had been wronger. They had the most outstanding effort of the entire army this time around, and if I had towed them with the HT's they would had been more outstanding still. I placed them on my southern flank with virtually no support. They destroyed approximately 10 AFV's without losing a single man (IIRC they may not had been even fired upon)! That was the entirity of the polish southern flank attack destroyed. Somewhere along the way, I decided to throw some of the slightly more northern AFV possible support into the objective areas I was losing, because it became apparent that enough time passed they were no longer needed, but also because these aces were just begging for more. Way to go team! Defending against advances, you may not find a more valuable platoon than ATG's in cover on a flank. Perhaps half your battles in an LC is defensive, so why not have some units which excel at that? The results I posted aren't typical of these guns, but it does show what they are capable of.

88's not having targets? Surely you jest. These were the ATG type, not the AA type. Nonetheless, the AA version is very formidable anyway. Yes, you are somewhat correct, because those guns are so valuable, I could not dare risk them against a target when visibility was a mere 7, for this battle anyway. If, when campaiging, you are interested in getting units to elite status, there is no gun better for the german cause. You do recall the disadvantages germany has against the heavier French, British, and USSR tanks don't you? That's where these babies come in. I would venture to guess they're still relavent until at least 1943 for knocking out heavier armor, after that the crew can be switched to the 88pak ATG's or something. If one feels like using them for long-range anti-personnel use at times, they can work real well there too.

Airstrikes? I wasn't allowed any IIRC, but if they were available I didnt' buy any. They would had been all but useless in this battle anyway, as the visibility was very low.

I didn't whine that giving the poles extra points was unfair. The gist of any whining was directed at excessive artillery picking by the AI and how the direct fire between AFV's was workign heavily to my disadvantage this time. I have had many battles with this size of a force against the poles, and it's the first time anything this nightmarish regarding artillery came off.

Ah, but I have discovered something. This is the first very low visibility game I have played in winSPWW2 as well. I don't think it is a coincidence that my counter-battery sat so long and didn't counter a thing (and with so much to counter). I also don't think it's a coincidence that the AI would go quite out of character of pick that much artillery, though I would still consider half of 60 guns pretty heavy, but I have seen that a few times and aren't amazed by it. I think the AI figures I CANNOT counter-battery him, because the low visibility would prevent that (which I didn't realize, if true) and thereby picks artillery in droves. I don't think I will go along with any battles having visibility that low again, and that may cure this excessive amount of artillery entirely.

BTW, I think you took my experienced gained through units being in core, incorrectly. What I was saying was that the longer a unti is in core, and is not destroyed, the more experience it gains. Even if exp is gained through kills alone, it can't gain exp if it isn't in the core, and the longer in the core the longer it can get kills.

[Ramm]

Originally Posted by Charles22

There are so many tanks for a number of reasons. Foremost because I find playing with a minimal amount of tanks VERY boring (the enemy is given the tank heavy option as well). Also, as I explained earlier, I am trying to create something of the feel of a force similar to a late east front german force, one which will often need mobility on the defensive to have much hope of holding, as my maps are very high (200) and somewhat narrow (130) such that the enemy is the quicker upon me, and I have more territory to cover up and down. The side benefit to this, is that you have a map so tall, that you end up a lot of times with almost 2 or 3 separate armies, instead of just 1 or 2, because even the longest ranging AFV guns in great visibility can't pretty much dominate the board by taking up basically one or two central positions.

I do have some regular infantry but I think having a dominant infantry unit is worth their extra price. How many infantry units have both "2" LMG's and a satchel charge? Or 2 LMG's and a sniper rifle? And these guys are very experienced, so you can get them to elite in no time.

8 SPAA's worthless? Truly you do not appreciate the advanatges of long standing units. It's a build for the future it is, because 100+ rated SPAA when germany is the one being air attacked, is far better than 60exp SPAA bought on the fly. Besides, even on the matter of Poland itself in a mere 7 rated visibility, these guys proved invaluable. Now that isn't the normal case, but I let my emotion get the better of me, and put them in range so close (as 7 is close) that some of them were engaged, by infantry. I usually pretty much hide them for the first battles, but will use them for distanced infantry support when enemy planes cannot be found. Though they have no armor, and that's why I am very cautious with them, they must had destroyed at least 6 tanks, and I lost only one of them. I don't think I lost a single man on the others. This was partly sue to the enemy tansk preferring to engage my AFV's though the SPAA was about. I was getting far more reliable kills with them, but it was very close range. Every unit in my army has a purpose, though it may not show up in every battle (most notably my ATG's).

37mm ATG's a waste? Well, in this battle you couldn't had been wronger. They had the most outstanding effort of the entire army this time around, and if I had towed them with the HT's they would had been more outstanding still. I placed them on my southern flank with virtually no support. They destroyed approximately 10 AFV's without losing a single man (IIRC they may not had been even fired upon)! That was the entirity of the polish southern flank attack destroyed. Somewhere along the way, I decided to throw some of the slightly more northern AFV possible support into the objective areas I was losing, because it became apparent that enough time passed they were no longer needed, but also because these aces were just begging for more. Way to go team! Defending against advances, you may not find a more valuable platoon than ATG's in cover on a flank. Perhaps half your battles in an LC is defensive, so why not have some units which excel at that? The results I posted aren't typical of these guns, but it does show what they are capable of.

88's not having targets? Surely you jest. These were the ATG type, not the AA type. Nonetheless, the AA version is very formidable anyway. Yes, you are somewhat correct, because those guns are so valuable, I could not dare risk them against a target when visibility was a mere 7, for this battle anyway. If, when campaiging, you are interested in getting units to elite status, there is no gun better for the german cause. You do recall the disadvantages germany has against the heavier French, British, and USSR tanks don't you? That's where these babies come in. I would venture to guess they're still relavent until at least 1943 for knocking out heavier armor, after that the crew can be switched to the 88pak ATG's or something. If one feels like using them for long-range anti-personnel use at times, they can work real well there too.

Airstrikes? I wasn't allowed any IIRC, but if they were available I didnt' buy any. They would had been all but useless in this battle anyway, as the visibility was very low.

I didn't whine that giving the poles extra points was unfair. The gist of any whining was directed at excessive artillery picking by the AI and how the direct fire between AFV's was workign heavily to my disadvantage this time. I have had many battles with this size of a force against the poles, and it's the first time anything this nightmarish regarding artillery came off.

Ah, but I have discovered something. This is the first very low visibility game I have played in winSPWW2 as well. I don't think it is a coincidence that my counter-battery sat so long and didn't counter a thing (and with so much to counter). I also don't think it's a coincidence that the AI would go quite out of character of pick that much artillery, though I would still consider half of 60 guns pretty heavy, but I have seen that a few times and aren't amazed by it. I think the AI figures I CANNOT counter-battery him, because the low visibility would prevent that (which I didn't realize, if true) and thereby picks artillery in droves. I don't think I will go along with any battles having visibility that low again, and that may cure this excessive amount of artillery entirely.

I can't really comment on whether or not you wasted your points because I'm not really experienced with that. I can tell you that visibility has absolutely nothing to do with off-map counter-battery fire. You CB effectiveness is determined by three things: A) exp, B) range of guns, C) a throw of the dice
Hope this helps

Andrew