FTM Invasions...too many, too early!!

[Cybvep]

Unless the Germans are fighting the Soviets, early Allied landings are simply stupid. They should concentrate on defending the UK, Africa and India instead of wasting MP and IC like that. What can they possibly accomplish against a major power? Any potential beachhead will be destroyed eventually, because the Germans will always be able to bring enough troops if they are not occupied anywhere else. When Germany is busy in the East, then it's a different story, though.

 

[Secret Master]

Forgot to mention for those who have not played German that Australia, N. Zealand, and
especially S. Africa like to do their own invasions as well. This time S. Africa landed 7(!!!)
armored divisions on the Holland Coast during my invasion of Holland/Belgium/France. I'd
say thats impressive landing gear for countries that never really made them, especially in
1940! lol!

That's something that is a bit bewildering. I understand a concerted attempt at an invasion, but South Africa has no business attacking Germany by itself.

 

[Giddieon]

I believe the AI calculates invasions something like this: They see a port or a stretch of land unguarded or minimally defended. AI thinks I can land there. AI does not think I can land and hold and then ultimately push back. However I have seen 3 good AI invasions. The First was a successful USA invasion of the Japanese home isles which took me completely by surprise, especially when they disregarded Island Hoping. The 2nd was an Scandinavian (Norway Sweden Finland and Denmark all participated) amphibious landing in Koenisberg and managed to take that entire region and was not thrown back into the sea. The 3rd would have been a good German Invasion if they secured the channel Naval wise before the landing but was ultimately cut off but the RN. Aside from those the AI doesn't think to hard concerning Invasion.

 

[ltccone]

Except for the Pacific I never experienced that problem in SF. The Brits always tried invasions starting the surrender of France and so would the Americans when they were at war. Sounds more like you don’t set theVC(?).

If by VC you mean victory conditions, I use random ones; it is too easy to cherry pick them. I never had the Brits invade more than a couple of times in all of the SF games I played, and never at a defended port.

 

[ltccone]

So the AI is throwing up a challenge and you guys want to remove this. Bloody idiots.

Challenge? Hardly.

 

[ltccone]

Yep and they the AI cant see the threat in Africa by the Italians. Probably because they are not at war with the UK at that point in the game. In the proces is also neglects India...

I reckon the main problem is that the AI cant determine the overall strategic situation like people can. I.e. the Brits knew in 1940 that any invasion of Europe was suicide because there small army would be facing the German army on the continent alone and would stand no chance.

I wonder if an "invasion delay," like after a certain date or when the German invade the USSR, could be hard coded. The only thing keeping me from invading the UK in 1939 is that it will bring the USSR into the war.

 

[unmerged(331487)]

I have done it in SF, but then it was coded differently.

Right now i might try to push Barbarossa past Moscow and then rerout the paras and tank divisions for Sealion. The Supply system prevents the usage of such units past the moskva /archangelsk line anyway. Right now i cant even reach Stalingrad because of breaking down supply. Its not like one needs alot of static infantry divisions for sealion ^^. Plopping down 15 elite German Tank corps led by 3-5 elite FJ divisions will surely break any British resistance. But that pretty much depends on how well the Italian AI does.

OTOH you can abuse Sealion even more as it is currently coded. Let the UK AI exhaust itself, prepare the troops for Barbarossa and use the Sealion trigger for Barbarossa. The troops that would normally guard the Atlantikwall can be sent for Sealion instead. Keeping 25-50 divisons back only makes sense, and that is more than enough fro an exhausted UK.

Last time i even had a US invasion post Sealion. Right at the tip of Denmark. To bad my 3! Panzerkorps of 15 divisions were retooling just south of the ex danish-german border....

I would have no problem, if the AI would cheat a bit concerning FOW to determine Naval invasion chances. I mean seriously most of us here have had that fun game of a naval invvasion landing right in front of Panzer divisions resting and retraining for new campaign. But its only fun once to smash the best the AI has so profoundly.

 

[Hoffdogg]

Actually lol after just playing a Germany game in FTM3.05 this is a problem. I had a few South African Armour Divisions attack Whilemsahen (Spelling) lol. They Were quickly destroyed.

 

[Easy1]

The naval invasion aspect is a bit overlooked by pdox in the HOI genre. Naval invasions are mostly important in 20th century, the era of mobile and dynamic warfare. I have the feeling Johan and his staff has quite not comprehended the importance of naval invasions and naval invasion skrimishes to a working WWII scenario. Both in Europe and Asia the allies won by invading from sea, at the right time and the right place.

At the right time and the right place are the relevant words. I believe more scripting or even inelegant hacks should be implemented to prevent the current invasion anarchy.

Where should the AI launch naval invasions? Make the AI prioritize between which provinces and regions should be invaded. Strategical important regions should have high priority, even though they are heavily guarded. Strategically less important should have minor priority, even though they are not guarded at all. That is not to say that regions not so important should not be invaded at all. The point is these provinces should not be invaded just because they by coincidence at one time are not guarded.

And when? If the invasion is tactical, that is on an island or peninsula (Crete, Norway, Guam, Tarawa, Guadalcanal), the invading force must always be stronger in quantity and quality than the garrison guarding it. If the invasion is strategical, for example on the mainland of the continent or directly on the core territory (Japan, France, England, Australia, Italy, North Africa) of the opponent, the invading force must be stronger in quantity and quality than the opponent force employed and available on the same at the same time. Preferably, the country launching a strategic invasion are more powerful in at least two of the three basic military branches; Army, Air Force and Navy.

A more logic approach should be applied to the naval invasion AI for greater profit.

 

[TimmyTopper]

Britain invaded Sicily a week after i joined the war lol

 

[eric99]

In FTM, as German, I found I have to keep 2x as many units on the coast of France and the low countries. Delays Barbarossa a bit but still doable.

 

[Oof]

If by VC you mean victory conditions, I use random ones; it is too easy to cherry pick them. I never had the Brits invade more than a couple of times in all of the SF games I played, and never at a defended port.

Yes thats what i meant. I have made one saved game for all factions with what i think are realistic VC but will also provide with an interesting game. For example, for the Axis I have named locations like Malta, London, Stalingrad, Singapore, Batavia and Hawai. It does work, though not always as well as expected.

 

[Oof]

I wonder if an "invasion delay," like after a certain date or when the German invade the USSR, could be hard coded. The only thing keeping me from invading the UK in 1939 is that it will bring the USSR into the war.

Though i am not a modder or programmer, it should be possible.

When i play Germany i usually use the "historical" timeline because otherwise my threat will go up and I will miss out on bonuses.

 

[Oof]

Where should the AI launch naval invasions? Make the AI prioritize between which provinces and regions should be invaded. Strategical important regions should have high priority, even though they are heavily guarded. Strategically less important should have minor priority, even though they are not guarded at all. That is not to say that regions not so important should not be invaded at all. The point is these provinces should not be invaded just because they by coincidence at one time are not guarded.

I am all for coding. If some of the ideas in this thread cannot be implemented for whatever the reason, at least some hard coding should be done. I earlier suggested to block AI invasions of the European continent until the year is at least 1942 and the USA is at war with Germany. Other possible codes to block invasions are:
- Scandinavia not until 1943/44
- Italy including Sicily, the year is at least 1941 and Libya is Allied controlled

And when? If the invasion is tactical, that is on an island or peninsula (Crete, Norway, Guam, Tarawa, Guadalcanal), the invading force must always be stronger in quantity and quality than the garrison guarding it. If the invasion is strategical, for example on the mainland of the continent or directly on the core territory (Japan, France, England, Australia, Italy, North Africa) of the opponent, the invading force must be stronger in quantity and quality than the opponent force employed and available on the same at the same time. Preferably, the country launching a strategic invasion are more powerful in at least two of the three basic military branches; Army, Air Force and Navy.

A more logic approach should be applied to the naval invasion AI for greater profit.

Sorry, but I don’t agree on this one, take D-Day for example. The Allied troops actually involved in the landings had fewer numbers then the troops in the Calais – Brittany area that could have been deployed by the Germans. But even the amount of German troops in the Normandy area of the landings outnumbered the initial Allied troops. More troops were only send after the initial landings succeeded.
I reckon coding invasions is a better solution, though I prefer some kind of planning and research even more. Though it might be hard to implement.

I do get what you mean as I think its one of the major problems of the game. The AI cant determine the overall strategic situation like a human. But even that could be coded. If England is not invaded and not at war with Japan, N-Africa has top priority. If the Japanese threat gets too high or when at war with Japan, Inida and Singapore get the same prioirty as N-Africa. Combine that with the codes above and the game would greatly improve without too much work…

 

[Secret Master]

I am all for coding. If some of the ideas in this thread cannot be implemented for whatever the reason, at least some hard coding should be done. I earlier suggested to block AI invasions of the European continent until the year is at least 1942 and the USA is at war with Germany. Other possible codes to block invasions are:
- Scandinavia not until 1943/44
- Italy including Sicily, the year is at least 1941 and Libya is Allied controlled

Well, let me illustrate why this is a bad thing.

"Rommel, the Soviets are putting up stiff resistance in the east. What are we going to do?"

Rommel looks at his WWII script.

"Hmmm. It says here that the Allies can't invade the continent until 1942 and only if the US is involved. They also can't invade Scandinavia until 43. Okay, send all panzers to the eastern front."

"Ummm, are you sure?"

"Of course I'm sure. Wilhelm Canaris talked with Churchill just the other day and sorted it all out. Now, do what you are told and leave western Europe completely undefended until January 1st, 1942. Now get going!"

 

[Oof]

If you mean the AI or players cheating, the AI can be stopped depending on the programming, players cant. But if people wanna cheat, its their game But D-Day for example could also be done like this:
- USA at war with Germany
- Allies control N-Africa
- Allies control India
etc
but an "or" could be added:
- France is undefended or two ports are undefended for at least 14 days

Its just a rough idea someone put forward and not a bad one either. At the end of the day i rather see a planning option as posted before, but if anyone has a better solution to this problem, please come forward.

 

[Secret Master]

If you mean the AI or players cheating, the AI can be stopped depending on the programming, players cant. But if people wanna cheat, its their game But D-Day for example could also be done like this:
- USA at war with Germany
- Allies control N-Africa
- Allies control India
etc
but an "or" could be added:
- France is undefended or two ports are undefended for at least 14 days

Its just a rough idea someone put forward and not a bad one either. At the end of the day i rather see a planning option as posted before, but if anyone has a better solution to this problem, please come forward.

It's not a cheat. It's an exploit, perhaps, to know that the AI or human players are disallowed from invasions until certain dates and conditions are met. That's the problem with something like this. If the conditions are hard-coded, then the player simply plays around them and we are back to not having to garrison the west while attacking the Soviets.

You could give the AI Allies a cheat and let them "know" when the number of brigades Germany has posted on France's continental cores goes below a certain threshold relative to Allied military strength. When it reaches a certain ratio, the AI preps an invasion. The AI is not told where they are or what kind they are, but it just knows the general strength. But that is giving the AI a cheat. Some might consider that even worse.

And I did put forward an interim solution. Build stacks of MIL and put 3-5 divisions of MIL in each port. Problem solved. The AI won't attack as long as all your ports are garrisoned by multiple divisions. MIL is the cheapest alternative in terms of IC and leadership (and they don't even take up that much manpower), so that satisfies my desire that Germany be forced to adequately garrison it's coast and that the AI no conduct stupid random invasions. And I know it works because I've tried it and got zero invasions while having those stacks sitting in those ports. Removing one stack from one port prompted the UK to land divisions there, so I know it's watching the ports like a hawk, waiting for a weakness.

 

[Cybvep]

I wouldn't like to see hardcoded limits, either, besides the very basic ones. If e.g. France is completely empty and Germany is occupied elsewhere, then I don't see the reason why the AI shouldn't attack. However, if there is no second front, then attacking is just stupid, even if there are several empty ports. How long will they last? A week? Two weeks? A month? Inevitably, they will be destroyed.

AI should attack when it has a chance of achieving sth. It shouldn't be anything like "Oh, look, an empty port! ATTACK!". Otherwise, it will be like the age-old "hole in the wall" problem. Sure, it looks like a perfect place to attack, but the player knows this and prepares enough forces in order to deal with the invaders... then again... and again...

Also, it would be absolutely marvellous if the AI supported its invasions with paratroopers and partisans, if they are available.

 

[Easy1]

Sorry, but I don’t agree on this one, take D-Day for example. The Allied troops actually involved in the landings had fewer numbers then the troops in the Calais – Brittany area that could have been deployed by the Germans. But even the amount of German troops in the Normandy area of the landings outnumbered the initial Allied troops. More troops were only send after the initial landings succeeded.
I reckon coding invasions is a better solution, though I prefer some kind of planning and research even more. Though it might be hard to implement.

I do get what you mean as I think its one of the major problems of the game. The AI cant determine the overall strategic situation like a human. But even that could be coded. If England is not invaded and not at war with Japan, N-Africa has top priority. If the Japanese threat gets too high or when at war with Japan, Inida and Singapore get the same prioirty as N-Africa. Combine that with the codes above and the game would greatly improve without too much work…

The allies were always superior in numbers, from the Normandy invasion to the fall of the Reich. They would never have invaded if they were not. The allied invading force of army, navy and air force units was numerically superior by far. The initial landings succeeded because of the the allied were supieror in quantity in every aspect.

Your later suggestions is a bit more inelegant and can lead to a determenistic game.

 

[plasticpanzers]

The early war mass invasions as now occur would be different from the period 1943-46. If
the problem with landings from 1936-42 can be fixed then perhaps some AI tweaking to have
the Allies begin a protracted period of major invasion buildup in France and less so in other
places. In France concentrated air combat to clear the skies, partizans to disrupt the areas,
more air bombardment to attack ground units and logistics, then the AI can choose a place to
invade by calculating the German presence in France.

The AI cannot "learn" anything. it will only act according to the programming. the program
must be done to have the controlling Allied AI conduct a preinvasion with ever increasing
pressure til the invasion is launched (with proper "landing craft" or landing ability built up over
time).

The Allied AI should be able to be guided to certain areas at certain times (Torch, Sicily, Italy,
France) by a programing schedule but not hardcoded to attack one particular point on a certain
date.