you need no additional thoughts on the matter.
if it works, it is a good strategy by definition.
I did the 2 IC’s on the first turn and it turned out to be a set back. You are significantly better off with the single IC and extra transport for the opening build. This is true for a number of reasons. Try the dual complexes for turn 1 and and you will get the feeling of anemia from lack of units and ability to move them.
AI’s are typically difficult to make and are often augmented by “cheating” on most computer games. The computer cheats by increasing unit production or speed or increased stamina or all of the above. There are very few decent AI’s in the world that are competetive by not cheating.
Neural Networks seem to be most promising, but the care it takes to program one is considerable. Deep Blue is an excellent example of an AI (playing chess) however it is only as good as the memory of games played in its history.
Knowing the computer is a neural network means the human can defeat the computer by presenting it with a scenario that it has not seen before (ideally something wild). The computer will do a substandard guess at the moves since it has not encountered such a move before and it can be taken advantage of at that point.
Computers have a long way to go before they can hang with the human mind.
Designing an AI for Axis and Allies will prove to be extrememly challenging. The challenge will come from doing exactly what you have been mentioning, such as prioritizing land values (not ipc values).
Creating an AI and creating a good AI are two completely different things, so start just by making an AI, then see about making a good AI. Don’t worry about the computer making predictable moves, you can throw in a better decision making process later.
I would even start with a more simple approach and create a simulator for ONLY Germany vs. Russia (minus naval units). Keep it simple as possible and work on more complicated approaches later.
This will turn out to be a large project.
When I first came to these boards, I found the bid system most interesting. People felt they needed a bid to remain competitive with the Axis and I did not understand why.
Now I think I do.
#1) People have interesting (if not incorrect) barometers reading just how successful the Axis is the doing. It is not necessary to hold the Baltic, take Africa, or hold the beaches of Western Europe to stage an effective campaign to bring an Axis Victory.
#2) Just because one side appears to be winning, does not mean they will take the target Capital. Has anyone seen the Japan stall on their offensive? Or find the Fall of Germany occurs 3 or 4 turns beyond what they originally thought (or not at all)?
People quit their games long before they should because of a perceived notion there is no hope of winning.
This game has very little to do with history, so don’t feel that if the Allies hold Western Europe, that the war will be over by May 1945.
I don’t think a bid is necessary, but if anyone wants to give me extra money to start, they can.