Will SC2 AI Invade Norway?

[Edwin P.]

Question: Will the Axis AI in SC2 be able to invade Norway and Sweden?

In SC1 this was the standard strategy for Axis human players who relied on the production bonus from conquering these two Nordic countries to beat the Allies. In fact, I can't remember a game where a human Axis player did not conquer Norway and Sweden.

For those new to the forum, the standard strategy was to conquer Denmark, mass a few airfleets in Denmark, send two armies to flank Oslo, then bombard Oslo with air fleets and then land the Armies to conquer Oslo in one turn, 95% of the time this strategy succeeds. When it does not not the allied player would operate the Morwegian corps from Bergan to Oslo, transport a UK unit to Bergan and perhaps operate in air units to Bergan to intercept any fleets attacking Oslo. Then a most interesting and costly battle develops.

If this was added to the library of Axis Intermediate or Expert AI operational tactics it would make for a much more challenging game.

And of course, the Allied AI never launched serious attacks on an Axis controlled Norway after Germany launched Barbarossa. In contrast, many Allied players have their carriers and battleships bombard Bergan to gain experience, if the Axis have no air power in Norway, and if the Axis navy has been sunk or can be blocked from interfering they may even attempt an invasion to liberate Oslo.

[ June 20, 2004, 05:23 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[pzgndr]

We'll have to see.

The more I think about this little sideshow in April 1940, the more it appears as a coup event rather than a deliberate seaborne invasion. If the AI cannot or will not invade, then we have the event scripts to create a coup event where Norway becomes Axis.

This may actually be easier to do than twisting the AI priorites around to make Norway a worthy target. Norway offers some qualitative advantage for U-boats and AFs in the North Sea, but the low resources and negative political effect makes this a risky move. What would compel a well-programmed AI to do this? Whereas a pro-Axis coup event (involving nominal invasion forces below the scale of corps and armies) might be more historically accurate anyway.

It's too soon for a definitive answer. But I'll say this much. With all of the new scripting available in SC2 for various events, plus the new diplomatic options and everything else, we should be able to recreate most major events one way or another as well as many what-if events that could have happened.

[Norse]

The more I think about this little sideshow in April 1940, the more it appears as a coup event rather than a deliberate seaborne invasion.

It wasn't a coup. It was actually aliens in UFO's! Yeeeeeah let's make the ultimate Nazi Space Rangers vs Allied Superheroes game and add this coup.

[Some_God]

Norse, you summed up my thoughts.

[Blashy]

The AI could always invest in diplomacy and make Sweden join the war.

After all Sweden was supplying the Axis heavily during the war.

[Exel]

Eh, why do you always keep asking "why would a competent AI do this and that"? Ffs, think why they did so IRL! Germany didn't attack Norway for no reason to just waste resources, and what negative political effect could the invasion possibly have had on Germany that had already annexed Austria, Chechoslovakia, Poland and Denmark? If anything the Norwegian campaign was a setback and a political defeat for the Allies, not the Axis.

[Edwin P.]

"What would compel a well-programmed AI to do this?"

According to the the SC Srategy Guide authored by Bill Macon and Dan Fenton:

Those valuable resources in Norway and Sweden include three cities, three ports, and three mines, so an ambitious Axis player should consider both countries. Conquering both Norway and Sweden actually increases the individual productivity of each and is considered a must for the Axis........Achieving this early is almost a decisive factor in winning the game.

If this will continue to be a critical factor in SC2 then the AI, if only at Expert level, needs to execute this via its own internal logic or scripted events. One issue I see is that if it does so it also needs its own logic to defend what it has taken and if necessary, return unneeded units to the main European Front.

Some players take these countries and withdraw all but 3 corps to Europe. Others take these countries and maintain a HQ unit, 3 Corps, an army and an airfleet in the Nordic Countries to prevent any Allied attempt at liberation. While others maintain an Army next to a German port, in position to reinforce Oslo via seaborne transport in 1 turn or defend the Western Front.

[ June 23, 2004, 10:27 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[Exel]

I just hope that SC2 manages to model the WW2 world with such accuracy that all those gamey strategies from SC1 would become much less preferable both to a human and AI player. Like the Allied invasion of Ireland and Axis invasion of Sweden. There are reasons why neither of those happened irl. Of course, executing some ahistorical maneuvers shouldn't be penalized too much to make them completely unfavorable, but SC2 really should strive towards a more realistic gameplay than what SC1 had.

[ev]

Part of the reason Germany did not invade Sweeden is because Sweeden was selling its ore to Germany.

First, it is worth pointing out that Germany had plenty of ore. Sweedish ore apparently was better for making some extra hard steel used in Anti Tank munitions and some other specialized work.

Germany did not have that much to gain from occupying Sweeden It was already getting the ore it needed. It had to pay for it. But keeping an Army in Sweeden would also be very expensive. And, even if Germany occuppied Sweeden the ore would not be 100% free...

Germany had to invade Norway for three reasons.

First, if the allies took over Norway they could bomb the hell out of northern Germany. Bases in Norway would be sufficiently close so British Fighter could escort bombers attacking northern cities in Germany.

Second, if the allies took over Norway, they could seal the German Navy and U boats in the Baltic Sea... and, even more so before the fall of France.

Third, during the winter, Sweedish ports would freeze and could not ship its ore to Germany. During the winter, Sweedish ore was shipped to Germany through Norway. If the allies took the port of Narvick they would cut off all winter shipments of ore from Sweeden to Germany.

Fourth, by occupying Norway, and gaining Finland as an ally, the Germans blocked British access to Sweeden. The British would have to retake Norway before attacking Sweeden. And the Sweeds could not sell its ore to the British since they had no way of getting it out of the Baltic Sea... once Germany took over Sweeden.

The coup the grace would come from Russia. When Russia attacked Finland, Finland was forced to allign with Germany. This left Sweeden effectively encircled. Sweeden was pretty much cut off from the world. It could not trade with anyone but Germany. And neither the Brits nor the Russians could attack Sweeden before first running over either Norway or Finland.

It made no sense for Germany to keep several armies occupying Sweeden when Sweeden had no choice but to sell its ore at cheap prices to the Germans. The challenge for Hubert is to find a way to represent how Hitler cornered the Sweedish.

I would suggest that as long as Norway is controlled by the Axis, some of Seeden's MPP's should be passed on the the German economy... Any other ideas?

[Edwin P.]

I would suggest that as long as Norway is controlled by the Axis, some of Seeden's MPP's should be passed on the the German economy... Any other ideas?

After Norway falls to the Axis create a Merchant ship route from Sweden to Germany that Allied naval forces could interdict - either Russian ships or British ships that make it into the Baltic - Originally proposed by JerseyJohn in the SC Forum

[Exel]

It should also be done so that Germany has little incentive to attack Sweden. I'm afraid that the merchant ship route suggestion would only add to the reasons to annex Sweden instead of just strangling some safe MPPs from it.

It's hard to say if it would be historical, but it could nevertheless be done so that if Germany attacks Sweden, the chances of Finland joining Axis in 1941 would seriously drop. If Finland is already in war with USSR, then the consequence might be that Finland would disallow German troops on its soil. Not sure if the latter is possible with the SC2 engine, but just as suggestion.

[pzgndr]

Germany had to invade Norway for three reasons.

These are all good reasons, and human players can choose to invade or not. The original question was whether the Axis AI would. All I tried to point out is that there are some options available in the SC2 Editor that will allow some customization for better games against the AI. If the AI scripts can be worked to permit a decent recreation of historical events then great. If not, there are some other event scripts that could be used as reasonable alternatives.

[Edwin P.]

Pzgnder, I agree that if needed an event script could be written that changes Norway and Sweden to Axis after Denmark surrenders. A simple solution to a more difficult project - improving the AI. This would give the Axis AI the same MPP boost that humans players get from conquering these two countries.

Example:

IF Denmark Surrenders then 70% Norway Surrenders to Axis (90% at Expert Level AI) and Axis Bomber Appears in Norway.

IF Norway Surrendered to Axis then 50%(90% at Expert Level AI) Sweden Surrenders to Axis and 2nd Axis Bomber Appears in Norway.

AND

CONDITION: Allies DOW Ireland AND Allies DOW Low Countries Then TRIGGER: 50% EFFECT: Sweden Joins Axis OR with each attack on Ireland and the Low Countries Sweden becomes 1-25% more pro-Axis.

[ June 23, 2004, 09:44 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[Exel]

Eeh, Sweden surrendering to Axis automatically should really be a very very distant possibility.

[Roosevelt45(the 2nd)]

I agree. I don't know of any country that would have just surrendered.

[Kuniworth]

Originally posted by pzgndr:

We'll have to see.

The more I think about this little sideshow in April 1940, the more it appears as a coup event rather than a deliberate seaborne invasion.

Come on Bill that's plainly ridicilous. It was a large campaign with big bets on both sides and it dragged on for 2 months. We gotta have a good scandinavian campaign.

[afrika31]

Originally posted by Roosevelt45(the 2nd) :

"I agree. I don't know of any country that would have just surrendered."

france may as well have

[pzgndr]

Come on Bill that's plainly ridicilous. It was a large campaign

That is correct, and I'm not trying to distort history here. Really, I'm not trying to be ridiculous. I'm just making a case in game terms only. Whereas historically it was a large campaign, it wasn't nearly as large as most game campaigns need to be. You need to invade Norway with several armies and/or corps plus hit Oslo with several AFs to ensure a quick defeat, and this required force is much larger than it should be.

It takes some effort and preparation just for a human player to pull this off quickly following Fall Weiss prior to Fall Gelb using the historical timetable. Again, how should the AI be scripted to compel it to exert this effort for a risky invasion rather than plunging headfirst into France which is a more logical strategy? This is a problem, trying to force the AI to do something illogical. IF this AI issue cannot be resolved, then a scripted coup-like event COULD be used to adequately simulate what actually happened. That's all I'm saying here.

[Edwin P.]

Eeh, Sweden surrendering to Axis automatically should really be a very very distant possibility.

I agree. I don't know of any country that would have just surrendered

The script I proposed is designed to recreate for the AI the "standard human strategy" of conquering Sweden in order to give it that "Decisive factor" required for victory outlined in the Strategy Guide.

SC Strategy Guide - Conquering both Norway and Sweden actually increases the individual productivity of each and is considered a must for the Axis........Achieving this early is almost a decisive factor in winning the game.

Question for: Excel, Roosevelt45(the 2nd) and Afrika31:

How often do you as the Axis in SC conquer Sweden - Never, Sometimes, Often, Always?

[Roosevelt45(the 2nd)]

Often.

Only if I'm in big sh*t and don't have enough troops available I choose to cancel/delay the operation.

[Exel]

*Sigh*

Though some of you power players may want the AI to play as abusive and exploitative as you do, I for one strongly disagree. The AI should above all play realistically. Or even better, the game should model the world so that certain exploit strategies wouldn't be so unrealistically feasible as they are in SC1 even to human players. Invasion of Ireland and Sweden just to name two of them.

[Shaka of Carthage]

I agree with Exel.

[Edwin P.]

There are two points of view - one group wants a so called "realistic game" that duplicates WWII history while the the other group (including me) wants a game with a ruthless and exploitative AI.

Why not a simple setting that prevents players or the AI from attacking countries that were neutral in WWII - Sweden, Ireland, Spain, Switzerland and Turkey. Additionaly, the Allies could not attack Italy, Denmark, the Low Countries, Finland or Norway.

The historical players could play their type of game and the exploitive players could play their type of game. My guess is that most players will prefer the free form abusive and exploitative game over the politically correct game with its inherent limitations.

Or one could simple write an event that has all of the historical neutral countries join the other side if one of them is attacked.

[ June 24, 2004, 11:41 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[Exel]

Wanting a historically realistic game is different from wanting a historically precise game. There's no point in a WW2 game that doesn't allow "what ifs". But exploit on the other hand is exactly what the term suggests: unrealistic game mechanism abuse. Invading a small neutral just for the easy plunder and experience without any consequences is just that. It is not realistic, it is not fun.

[Edwin P.]

exploit.....Invading a small neutral ..... without any consequences is just that.

I agree, I also seem to recall that the Allies invading Ireland or the Axis invading Sweden affects the readiness of other neutral countries.

What you are saying is that the consequences for invading ireland (decrease in US war readiness and Unit trapped in country with no way to leave) should be more severe. Such as, invade Ireland and there's a chance that Norway will join the Axis or Invade Switzerland and their is a chance that Turkey joins the Allies. Am I correct?

PS: I find SC to be a fun game, even with the above mentioned exploits available.