Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

6-Player Friendly PBEM Global War

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> After Action Report >> 6-Player Friendly PBEM Global War Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
6-Player Friendly PBEM Global War - 6/26/2021 6:42:38 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline 		Optional Rules + Compulsory USSR-Japanese Peace

We've managed to gather six players who have agreed to a friendly game of MWiF. We will be playing the global war scenario. Suffice it to say that more than one of us was hesitant to play due primarily to their frustrations with MWiF’s production and convoy system; especially if playing the CW or USA. This hesitancy was overcame, or at least mitigated, by me agreeing to ensure full production though hook or crook (i.e., game file editing). As such I agreed to be the “game master” and handle the production for all major powers via instructions from the others. And if this wasn’t enough I also agreed to be this game’s “war correspondent”. That is, I will document our game in Powerpoint and in my Excel-based AAR template and post such in an AAR on the forum.

Getting Started.
Before assigning major powers to player we agreed to use https://www.pbegames.com/roller/ for our die rolls. The next thing we worked out through several iterations were the optional rules.




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by rkr1958 -- 7/15/2021 3:42:22 AM >

_____________________________

Ronnie
Post #: 1
RE: 6-Player Friendly PBEM Global War - 6/26/2021 6:45:59 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline 		USSR Japan Compulsory Peace [RAW option 50 section 13.7.3]

In addition to those which we agreed to that are coded in MWiF, we also agreed to manually enforce, "USSR Japan Compulsory Peace" if necessary using the rules as written for Final Edition (FE) WiF (i.e., WiF 7).




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 2
RE: 6-Player Friendly PBEM Global War - 6/26/2021 7:12:09 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline 		Assignment of Major Powers to Players.

Finally, we had to decide how to assign major powers to players. There are 8 major powers at start and we have 6 players. We decided to use the WiF recommended allotment which assigns Germany, Italy, Japan, CW each to 1 of 4 players, France & USSR to the 5th and USA & China to the 6th. Implicit in the assignment of the USSR (& France) to a player 5 is also the CCP and in China (& USA) to a player 6 is only the Nationalist Chinese.

So after agreeing on how to divvy up the 8 major powers among our six player next came the question of who gets what? Do we bid? Well, if we were all experienced and competitive players then maybe so. But our 6 players ranged in experience from novice to above average and we're playing this as a friendly game. Note that our stated experience was self estimated so I'm afraid our above average player might be ringer. If so, I base hope that he's also agreed that this is to be a friendly game and will act more like a mentor and less like a steam roller.

So that still leaves the question of how to allocate the major powers to players. I recalled historical and game average objective data that's included with MWiF. I mentioned that to the team, agreed to import, plot that data in Excel and provide the plots to the rest of the team. After a bit of discussion we agreed to set the bids for each major power or power-pair based on the game average for the July-Aug 1945 turn (i.e., turn 36). Note that we did this even before assigning major powers to players.

We decided to randomly assign major powers to players, play the game and let the chips fall were they may. Our primary objective is to have fun, which includes the social aspect of interacting with ones side. But we all agree that one's side (i.e., axis or allied) is more important that one's major power winning. Though, if one can accomplish both that wouldn't be bad either. We will keep score.

As a personal objective, and one to which the others fully agreed, was that though this will be a "social" game I would like to compare and contrast the flow of our game to the historical at the corps and strategic level.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 3
RE: 6-Player Friendly PBEM Global War - 6/26/2021 7:25:12 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline 		Turn 1. Sep/Oct 1939. Weather & Actions.

We started this game in early May and have managed to get through the first turn. Hopefully, that we've got a lot of the logistics worked out with coordination between 6 players we'll move faster. No guarantee though and I'll document each turn as we finish it.

By the way, it's not been an oversight that I haven't told you which major power (or power-pair) that I drew. I wish to keep it that way. In fact, I wish to keep the assignments and the other players that way too. That is, confidential. The team agreed to let me document our game in the style of a neutral observer though I'm one of six active participants. We'll see how that goes over time and hopefully I won't let slip any of the assignments.

As you shall see, and I think agree, the first turn was very active and entertaining. The turn was long (6 impulses each side) and the weather fine across the map for the first 5 impulse-pairs.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 4
RE: 6-Player Friendly PBEM Global War - 6/27/2021 6:54:26 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline 		August 31, 1939. Germany.

The German player's setup appears driven by 5 goals:

(1) A quick and decisive 1-turn knockout of Poland. Germany setup the majority of his air and ground strength, including all 3 HQs, is setup on the Polish border.
(2) Minimize the incentive for the British and/or French to raid the Baltic on their initial (surprise) impulse. Germany has placed only 1 CP in the Baltic, which can provide supply but also which also places 1 CP at risk of being lost to a surprise raid into the Baltic by French and/or CW subs/SCSs.
(3) Distribute the KM SCSs and (remaining) CPs among major and a couple of minor ports to reduce the risk of surprise allied port strike. Note that the German player appears to have placed his most "valuable" naval assets out of range in the Prussian ports of Konigsberg and Memel. These include his Amph, TRS, 2 best BBs and 4 CPs.
(4) 2 unit stacks on the border with France (through setup & calling out the reserves) to significantly reduce the possibility of France pushing 4 units into Germany and being able to align Yugoslavia.
(5) If weather and surviving potential flips during the allied surprise impulse permits, have the forces necessary to secure Denmark on a invasion impulse, which requires gaining control of all Danish hexes that border the North Sea. Note that the optional rule "railway movement bonus" is NOT being used so crossing the strait to Frederikshavn will cost 5 MPs and not 4. The implication is that the German PzJag I div alone is unable to secure the 3-hex island that contains that port.





Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 5
RE: 6-Player Friendly PBEM Global War - 6/27/2021 6:58:39 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline 		September 1, 1939.

It begins. Good luck to both sides, all players and all readers. My hope is that this friendly game remains friendly, fun and competitive. Also, I hope I learn a bit from both the more experienced player(s) and for you my readers.





Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 6
RE: 6-Player Friendly PBEM Global War - 6/27/2021 7:13:40 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline 		Turn 1. Sep/Oct 1939. War Logs. Europe (Eastern & Western Fronts).





Attachment (1)

< Message edited by rkr1958 -- 6/28/2021 5:43:43 PM >

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 7
RE: 6-Player Friendly PBEM Global War - 6/27/2021 7:15:23 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline 		Turn 1. Sep/Oct 1939. Axis 03. Germany Invades Denmark.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 8
RE: 6-Player Friendly PBEM Global War - 6/27/2021 7:16:47 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline 		Turn 1. Sep/Oct 1939. Axis 05. Poland, Denmark Smashed & Germany Mobilizing West.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 9
RE: 6-Player Friendly PBEM Global War - 6/27/2021 7:18:24 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline 		Turn 1. Sep/Oct 1939. Axis 09. Germany Invades Holland.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 10
RE: 6-Player Friendly PBEM Global War - 6/27/2021 7:19:38 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline 		Turn 1. Sep/Oct 1939 (fd=factory destruction). Western Front.




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by rkr1958 -- 6/27/2021 7:20:28 PM >

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 11
RE: 6-Player Friendly PBEM Global War - 6/27/2021 7:27:38 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline 		Turn 1. Sep/Oct 1939. War Logs. The Med.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 12
RE: 6-Player Friendly PBEM Global War - 6/27/2021 7:28:24 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline 		Turn 1. Sep/Oct 1939 (fd). Italy/Italian Coast.

Of worth noting is that the Italian CCNN corps East of Nice was during setup broken down into two 1-3 inf divisions. During this turn, the Italian player used SCSs to transport each inf division to Italy and during the end of turn was able to recombine them into the CCNN corps.




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by rkr1958 -- 6/27/2021 7:30:52 PM >

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 13
RE: 6-Player Friendly PBEM Global War - 6/27/2021 7:31:58 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline 		Turn 1. Sep/Oct 1939 (fd). East Med/Libya/Egypt.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 14
RE: 6-Player Friendly PBEM Global War - 6/27/2021 7:32:35 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline 		Turn 1. Sep/Oct 1939 (fd). West Med/West North Africa.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 15
RE: 6-Player Friendly PBEM Global War - 6/27/2021 7:46:04 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline 		Turn 1. Sep/Oct 1939. Allied 06. USSR Invades Persia.

The Soviet player's Asian setup was obviously designed for a early (i.e., turn 1) invasion of Persia assuming fine weather and a successful claim on Bessarabia on an earlier impulse. The Soviet player got both. That is, a successful (i.e., allowed) claim on Bessarabia and a chance to rebase his air force away from the Romanian border to the Middle East on impulse 4. And fine weather on impulse 6.

The only thing that could have saved Persia was if the allies didn't get another impulse (10%). That didn't happen and Persia fell easily to the Soviet player this turn.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 16
RE: 6-Player Friendly PBEM Global War - 6/27/2021 7:46:58 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline 		Turn 1. Sep/Oct 1939 (fd). Persia. Post Soviet Conquest.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 17
RE: 6-Player Friendly PBEM Global War - 6/27/2021 7:49:28 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline 		Turn 1. Sep/Oct 1939. War Logs. Asian & Pacific Fronts.





Attachment (1)

< Message edited by rkr1958 -- 6/28/2021 5:44:28 PM >

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 18
RE: 6-Player Friendly PBEM Global War - 6/27/2021 7:53:21 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline 		Turn 1. August 31, 1939. Soviet Asia.

The strong Soviet setup in the Middle East meant a very weak Soviet Asian setup opposite Japan. The attempts by the Soviet player to seek a non-aggression agreement and then a pact with the Japanese player was rebuffed without comment. These rebuffs by the Japanese player became more than obvious with a Japanese setup that seemed obviously positioned to exploit the weak Soviet Asian setup.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 19
RE: 6-Player Friendly PBEM Global War - 6/27/2021 7:54:27 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline 		Turn 1. Sep/Oct 1939. Axis 01. Sea of Japan.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 20
RE: 6-Player Friendly PBEM Global War - 6/27/2021 7:59:48 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline 		Turn 1. Sep/Oct 1939. Axis 03. Japan DOWs & Invades Soviet Asia.

On Japan's surprise invasion impulse they managed to capture 2 RPs and Vladivostok. Now this early capture of Vladivostok led to some interesting rules discussion and play wrt/USSR-Japan compulsory peace optional rule. And more significantly, an eventual ceasefire versus peace. But I'm getting a bit ahead of myself. More on all this later.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 21
RE: 6-Player Friendly PBEM Global War - 6/27/2021 8:28:43 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline 		Turn 1. Sep/Oct 1939. Axis 03. Japanese Invasion of Soviet Asia.

With Terauchi HQ-I providing supply the Japanese capture the Krasnokamensk RP in Nomonhan.

To the northeast, an out of supply Japanese division captures the Blagovyeshchensk, and is flipped. Also, an out of supply Manchurian MIL corps manages to sever the Soviet Trans-Siberian Railway to Eastern Soviet Asia to Vladivostok.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 22
RE: 6-Player Friendly PBEM Global War - 6/27/2021 8:47:17 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline 		Turn 1. Sep/Oct 1939. Axis 03. Vladivostok Captured.

The Japanese mount a successful combine amphibious invasion and land assault on Vladivostok. They missed by 1; however, in achieving no losses and flips. Japan did lose a Manchurian MIL and saw 3 of the 6 surviving attackers flipped.

Now here pursued the interesting rules discussion on the USSR Japan Compulsory Peace.

quote:

USSR Japan Compulsory Peace [RAW option 50 section 13.7.3]

This optional rule reflects the willingness of both the USSR and Japan to remain at peace with each other during WW II. Though they had been fighting a mostly unreported little war along the Manchurian border for some time prior to Germany's invasion of Poland, they both felt a lot of pressure on other fronts: from Germany for the USSR and from the USA and the Commonwealth for Japan. Agreeing to peace with each other was in both of their self-interests.

If Japan controls Vladivostok during the first war between Japan and the USSR, the Japanese player must agree to a peace if the Soviet player wants one. Similarly, if the USSR controls 3 or more resources that were Japanese controlled at the start of the war, the Soviet player must agree to a peace if the Japanese player
wants one.

In either case, the new Russo-Japanese border is established by the hexes each controls at the time of the compulsory peace. Any pocket of non-coastal hexes wholly surrounded by hexes controlled by the other major power becomes controlled by the major power whose hexes surround them.


The Japanese player was under the assumption that the Soviet player would enforce a compulsory peace during the peace step of turn 1 and that the other two currently controlled Soviet Asian RPs as well as all Trans-Siberian railway hexes in Asia would revert to Japanese control. The Soviet player, perhaps prematurely pointed out that that was a different rule where the Soviets could surrender all of Asia to Japan during any peace step for any reason. The compulsory peace rule, which the Soviets could enforce because Japan had captured Vladivostok, ceded only those hexes captured by Japan or completely surrounded by the Japanese. As the remaining 2 RPs and segment of the Trans-Siberian railway between Blagovyeschensk and Vladivostok were neither Japanese controlled or surrounded they would still remain under Soviet control even though the Soviets had no way of getting the 2 RPs to any factory. In effect, if the Japanese didn't physically capture these hexes then the Soviet could deny the remaining 2 RPs to the Japanese.

It appeared to me at this point that the Soviet player had let "this" cat out of the bad a bit early. But as will be seen later, maybe not. Or maybe. You the readers can decide.




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by rkr1958 -- 6/27/2021 8:48:24 PM >

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 23
RE: 6-Player Friendly PBEM Global War - 6/27/2021 9:05:57 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline 		Turn 1. Sep/Oct 1939 (fd). USSR & Japanese Cease Fire.

Because of the "early warning" apparently offered by the Soviets and the mostly fine weather this long turn, Japan was able to capture the remaining 2 Soviet Asian RPs and the segment of the trans-Siberian railway hexes connecting them to Manchuria and Japanese controlled ports. Thus, allowing for the shipment of all 4 captured Soviet Asian RPs to Japanese controlled factories assuming the necessary CPs.

The "early" warning provided by the Soviets likely prevented the Japanese from prematurely railing out the Yamamoto HQ-A and other units to beef up their positions in China. As it stood this turn, it was after the Japanese captured the remaining 2 RPs and needed rail hexes before they railed these units out.

Interestingly, I think the Japanese player fully assumed that the Soviet player would enforce a peace. If so, according to the rules this peace would be a pact and maintained by garrison ratios similar to the Nazi-Soviet pact. Which meant that both the Soviets and Japanese beginning in 1940, assuming a pact in Sep/Oct 1939, would have to maintain the appropriate garrison levels in order for the other side to not to be able to break the pact and go to war again. This peace would also mean that the Soviets would no longer be at war with a major power and would then be required to take only a combine or pass and be only to save 1 (additional) oil per turn.

Apparently the Soviet player had other plans. He leveraged the facts that Japan had begun their pull out of Manchuria and Soviet Asia to China and that since Japan controlled Vladivostok he could wait and force a peace during any turn he wished. He didn't have to force one now. He used these facts to negotiate a ceasefire that would be renegotiated every year and that would not require any garrisons by either side. More significantly the Soviet player would technically remain at war with a major power which would allow him and the CCP to take full land impulses and save as much oil as they wished.

The German player didn't seem at all happy with this ceasefire as this gives the Soviet player significantly flexibility in moving and redeploying his forces in Eastern Europe. Well I guess you can't make everybody happy.

So while the Soviets lost Soviet Asia and 4 RPs they did gain 3 Persian oil, the ability to take full land impulses and no need to maintain any forces in Soviet Asia. Though, 2 of the Persian oil are a bit tricky to get anywhere without CPs in the Persian Gulf. But apparently that's acceptable to the Soviet player.




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by rkr1958 -- 6/27/2021 9:09:43 PM >

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 24
RE: 6-Player Friendly PBEM Global War - 6/27/2021 9:15:02 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline 		Turn 1. Sep/Oct (fd). Northern China.

Not much happen in China this turn except for strategic bombing. Though China did through maneuver try to flank the Japanese.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 25
RE: 6-Player Friendly PBEM Global War - 6/27/2021 9:18:05 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline 		Turn 1. Sep/Oct (fd). Southern China.

While the Soviet player controls the CCP and the US player the Nationalist, which makes for some interesting play in China, one wonders if the Chinese were a bit too passive. Maybe or maybe not. Likely too late now with Japan now in position to transition all his attention to China (for now).




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 26
RE: 6-Player Friendly PBEM Global War - 6/27/2021 9:20:41 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline 		Turn 1. Sep/Oct (end). Destroyed/Repair.

Note. No (additional) ships/subs were damaged. Those in the repair pool at the end of this turn were there at the beginning of this game.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 27
RE: 6-Player Friendly PBEM Global War - 6/27/2021 9:26:45 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline 		Turn 1. Sep/Oct. Oil, Production & Builds.

Legend
BPL = build points lost in turn
OC = O-chits used in turn
OilN = oil need for reorg
OilU = oil used for reorg
OilC = number of oil points consumed for reorg
PP = # production points available (i.e., after strat, trade & food in flames)
FAC = total # available factories
BP = # build points available (i.e.; after strat & trade)
dBP = difference between BPs available and BPs lost which includes, if applicable, O-chits spent.
OIL = # of saved oil at end of production
BP* = cumulative number of BPs available since start of game.
dBP* = cumulative difference between BPs available and BPs lost which includes, if applicable, O-chits spent.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 28
RE: 6-Player Friendly PBEM Global War - 6/27/2021 9:27:49 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline 		Turn 1. Sep/Oct (fd). Production Spiral (1/2).




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 29
RE: 6-Player Friendly PBEM Global War - 6/27/2021 9:28:24 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline 		Turn 1. Sep/Oct (fd). Production Spiral (2/2).




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> After Action Report >> 6-Player Friendly PBEM Global War Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.406