Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: MWiF Global War Hot-Seat (AAR)

 
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 >> RE: MWiF Global War Hot-Seat (AAR) Page: <<   < prev  20 21 [22] 23 24   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: MWiF Global War Hot-Seat (AAR) - 12/30/2011 3:54:02 PM   
Red Prince


Posts: 3686
Joined: 4/8/2011
From: Bangor, Maine, USA
Status: offline 		It's going to be another hot one, as we return to the extreme end of the weather chart for Axis impulse #7:




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it!
-Lazarus Long, RAH

(in reply to Red Prince)
Post #: 631
RE: MWiF Global War Hot-Seat (AAR) - 12/30/2011 4:16:00 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Red Prince

I just did some calculations, and through impulse #5 of M/J '40, the CW has had 38 BP worth of units destroyed. This includes only CW units, and does not include any units it gained through alignment of minor nations. It also does not include naval units that were "damaged" and sent to the repair pool (much more trouble to track down).

During the first 4 turns, they only had 64 BP to use to build new units. That's a net gain of only 26 BP over the first 4+ turns. Continuing aggressive play by the CW, particularly with ships that take a long time to rebuild, seems inadvisable to me.

quote:

There are still CW controlled ships in the W.Med, are they?

See the image below. As I noted in post #610, the remaining Spanish force retreated to Gibraltar. If it had not, it would likely have been smashed.



quote:

The CW fleet is huge, compared to the combined fleet of the Italians and the Germans, so it can absorb losses more easily than the Euroaxis.

Yes, it is huge, but it has more territory to cover, and it has more tasks to accomplish. And, it has already absorbed so many losses in the W. Med that it has had to regroup in order to gain the advantage again.
quote:

Another thing I tend to do is not to send a fleet into the North Sea after France has been conquered/vichied by the Axis, when there isn't an invasion force waiting in German ports to conduct a Sealion. It is usually better to react on moves by the small German surface fleet, since this gives you ships in reserves which might come in handy later

Unfortunately, I can't afford this luxury. There is an AMPH in Kiel and ships that can carry divisions far away from the North Sea. I need to have a strong enough fleet there to discourage any attempt at Sea Lion or Sea Lion-like actions -- by being in position to intercept them -- especially since I've had to strip the UK for the time being in order to support Africa.
quote:

So strip the Far East of the ships and forces. Just keep small garrisons in India, Burma and Singapore (to prevent nasty things by Partisans) and get the rest of the units and ships out to where the fighting is. They are needed there and shouldn't sit on the proverbial ass doing nothing. Every CW ship should earn their pays, fighting the Italians and Germans in the first full two years of the war. I usually strip the Pacific of all ships, except for a few CA/CL doing escort duty to protect CW controlled TRS.

Please review the range of the ships in the Far East. Many of them would take half a year to get into the action. The others can reach the E. Med by next turn, but without any air cover, they are just begging to be destroyed by the soon-to-come Italian NAVs.

Also, even if the USA gets an extra chit per turn starting now, chances are it won't help all that much. In fact, those chances are 55% per turn of a 0 or a 1 being added. Yes, every little bit helps, but stripping the CW Far-East is begging for an attack that might last a full year or more before the USA can successfully DOW Japan. Is that really a safe thing to do, particularly with China in such a dire situation?

Repairing ships doesn't take very long. It is being destroyed that is a problem. If the risk of losing naval units seems dangerous to the Commonwealth, imagine what it feels like to the Italians and Germans. Each EuroAxis naval unit is much more valuable to them than comparable units to the Allied side. As Grant noticed in his first combat in the Civil war (paraphrasing): the enemy is just as afraid of you, as you are of the enemy.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Red Prince)
Post #: 632
RE: MWiF Global War Hot-Seat (AAR) - 12/30/2011 4:28:03 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Red Prince

I should add to this that there is a MAR division in Canton, just waiting for the chance to strike, and a 2nd MAR division coming in for Japan at the start of next turn. With those two units and whatever I can put on my current AMPH, a lot of damage could be done to the CW before the USA gets into it. At the moment, Australia is completely defenseless. With just those 2 MAR divisions and some fleet elements to provide supply, Melbourne and Canberra could be taken very easily -- with no reinforcements in sight -- at the start of next turn.

Suddenly, autumn falls in the northern hemisphere, and Australia is a Japanese Island !!!

And the USA is still twidling its thumbs, wondering if it really should get involved or not.
-----
Edit: And, in the meantime, the effort to wipe out China continues without being effected by this "little war" with the CW. If China chooses then to Surrender, all the better! Japan won't end up Neutral, and it can redeploy however it wants to with lots of land movements -- because the CW has abandoned the seas of the South Pacific in order to try to stabilize a failing Med.

Where the hell are those Americans, anyway!

Not really.

Japan has a long list of things it wants at the start of the war: Singapore, Manila, Batavia, Borneo, an attack on the US fleet in Honolulu, Guam, ... They are going to get some of those regardless of how the Allies defend. Making each of them a little bit more difficult to get is the best the Allies can do. Going for Australia is not in Japan's best interest. Oil is much more important. Invading from low section boxes is quite difficult. Maintaining supply to far flung units while the enemy has major ports adjacent to the supply path is very difficult. Japan is going to have nightmares with the activity limits if it is trying to move both land and naval units aggressively. Virtually all of the US Navy is going to be in the Pacific - and they arrive quickly once war is declared. Japan does not want to wait until the US declares war (because of surprise).

Say Japan devotes a couple of good invading units, plus transports and support naval units to Australia. When the US arrives it goes to ports in the South Pacific and threatens the supply lines. It can also use Singapore and/or Manila if those haven't been taken out. Then what it the life expectancy of the Japanese units in Australia?

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Red Prince)
Post #: 633
RE: MWiF Global War Hot-Seat (AAR) - 12/30/2011 4:50:55 PM   
Red Prince


Posts: 3686
Joined: 4/8/2011
From: Bangor, Maine, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets


quote:

ORIGINAL: Red Prince

I should add to this that there is a MAR division in Canton, just waiting for the chance to strike, and a 2nd MAR division coming in for Japan at the start of next turn. With those two units and whatever I can put on my current AMPH, a lot of damage could be done to the CW before the USA gets into it. At the moment, Australia is completely defenseless. With just those 2 MAR divisions and some fleet elements to provide supply, Melbourne and Canberra could be taken very easily -- with no reinforcements in sight -- at the start of next turn.

Suddenly, autumn falls in the northern hemisphere, and Australia is a Japanese Island !!!

And the USA is still twidling its thumbs, wondering if it really should get involved or not.
-----
Edit: And, in the meantime, the effort to wipe out China continues without being effected by this "little war" with the CW. If China chooses then to Surrender, all the better! Japan won't end up Neutral, and it can redeploy however it wants to with lots of land movements -- because the CW has abandoned the seas of the South Pacific in order to try to stabilize a failing Med.

Where the hell are those Americans, anyway!

Not really.

Japan has a long list of things it wants at the start of the war: Singapore, Manila, Batavia, Borneo, an attack on the US fleet in Honolulu, Guam, ... They are going to get some of those regardless of how the Allies defend. Making each of them a little bit more difficult to get is the best the Allies can do. Going for Australia is not in Japan's best interest. Oil is much more important. Invading from low section boxes is quite difficult. Maintaining supply to far flung units while the enemy has major ports adjacent to the supply path is very difficult. Japan is going to have nightmares with the activity limits if it is trying to move both land and naval units aggressively. Virtually all of the US Navy is going to be in the Pacific - and they arrive quickly once war is declared. Japan does not want to wait until the US declares war (because of surprise).

Say Japan devotes a couple of good invading units, plus transports and support naval units to Australia. When the US arrives it goes to ports in the South Pacific and threatens the supply lines. It can also use Singapore and/or Manila if those haven't been taken out. Then what it the life expectancy of the Japanese units in Australia?

Nil, of course.

The idea is to get into Australia just long enough to conquer it, forcing the Allies to retake it, then get those units out of there and on to more useful places. The hope would be to do this all to the CW before the USA is prepared to enter the war, in those 3-4 turns a 1940 DOW on the CW might gain.

Truth be told, this isn't really part of my plans at all. I was just offering it as an example of what kind of trouble the Japanese might be able to create, if it so desired. I'm not even looking at the Pacific yet. All I've done so far is to send a few air and naval units to Truk. I'll start examining it in greater detail toward the end of this turn and at the beginning of the next.

Point of fact: a low sea box may not be needed on a Surprise impulse. East Timor is just waiting to be taken -- thus the CW units in the Timor Sea at the moment. If all of the CW fleet is stripped away from this area, the Japanese Marines can start from East Timor and invade Australia from the Tasman Sea 3 Box, and even have Shore Bombardment as well. That could be done with a Combined or Naval Action. Next comes a Land Action to take both Canberra (and possibly on to Sydney) and Melbourne. After that, another Combined or Naval action can evacuate them to invade New Zealand or Borneo, or any of a number of places.

Meanwhile, during that first Combined/Naval Action, it's possible that the AMPH and/or TRS (with MAR Corps) can take Batavia, also with Ground Support and Shore Bombardment. That gets the Oil that is so important. This, of course, means I need to start getting those MAR back to a port soon, but that might be possible.

Yes, it might take some luck, but with Australia, New Zealand, and the NEI no longer in their hands, and the USA still not in the war yet (thought it probably would be in a few more turns), what will the CW do? Lie low and continue trying to keep the Med? Or will they try to get back their posessions that the Japanese have taken but not fortified?

_____________________________

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it!
-Lazarus Long, RAH

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 634
RE: MWiF Global War Hot-Seat (AAR) - 12/30/2011 5:52:25 PM   
Red Prince


Posts: 3686
Joined: 4/8/2011
From: Bangor, Maine, USA
Status: offline 		I'm about to take some big risks in Spain.

Also, with all due respect to Steve, I think I made the right decision in China (see previous page). I now have a 5-factor stack in Chengtu, a 10-factor stack in Chungking, a 6-factor stack due west of Chungking, and the 4-3 MIL NW of Chungking. As the Japanese, I can't get better than a 3:1 attack anywhere, and the very best I could do is a 31:10 on Chungking, which could move up to 4:1 -1, if I succeed in using HQ Support. That would give me a 50% chance of taking the city, but would leave a large number of units disorganized (80% chance).
-----
Edit: I forgot that using an ENG unit negates the multi-factory -1, so this actually has a 60% chance of success, and a 30% chance to remain organized.
-----
My other options are to try a 15:4 attack on the MIL unit and a 17:6 attack on the 6-factor stack. Due to the river lines and ZOC of the Chungking stack, even if I wait an impulse, I probably can't do much better than that. These two attacks would risk disorganizing a total of 9 units. The Chungking attack risks disorganizing 11 units. Even if I win both of the other 2 attacks and get disorganized, I'll have nothing left in good position to try for Chungking.

Given that I have all summer to try to conquer China, and I do have some other plans to put in motion that will require either Naval or Combined Actions (East Timor), I think I'm going to make this an impulse of risks and try for Chungking.

Cross your fingers, all (if you are rooting for the Axis). Or laugh in glee (if you are rooting for the Allies).

The way I figure it, the Chinese retreat did buy at least 2 impulses, and maybe even a full turn. If China is to be conquered (even just Nationalist China), it's going to be bloody, and I can't count on perfect weather every turn. As I've said before, I'm a player who likes to take risks. That creates possibilities for large gains or large failures. In this case, though, a failure (if you can't afford the worst possible result . . . ) is not going to be the end of the world for the Japanese. It will be very annoying, but that's the meaning of "risk".

< Message edited by Red Prince -- 12/30/2011 6:49:43 PM >

_____________________________

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it!
-Lazarus Long, RAH

(in reply to Red Prince)
Post #: 635
RE: MWiF Global War Hot-Seat (AAR) - 12/30/2011 7:34:19 PM   
Red Prince


Posts: 3686
Joined: 4/8/2011
From: Bangor, Maine, USA
Status: offline 		And here are the insane attacks I decided to make this impulse:




And the results:

Attack on Chungking; Assault, Fractional Odds .174 (No), Roll = 5 = 1/2 (ENG destroyed, attackers disorganized) USE-10 (no chit)
Attack on Matruh; Blitz, Fractional Odds .420 (Yes), Roll = 5+2 = 7 = -/1R (2-4 TERR destroyed, attackers disorganized)
Attack on Cartagena; Blitz, Fractional Odds .789 (No), Roll = Automatic = */2B
Attack on Spain [63,23]; Assault, Fractional Odds .500 (Yes), Roll = 7 = 1/2 (7-3 INF destroyed, attackers disorganized)
Attack on Bilbao; Assault, Fractional Odds .570 (Yes), Roll = 8+2 = 10 = */2S

As you can see, I was semi-lucky in China; HQ Support was successful, and the roll did gain the city, but now my Engineer is dead and I have 10 disorganized units there. However, the 2 best remaining Nationalist Chinese units are also dead, and Japan is in control of the capital.

The attack on Matruh, Egypt (which I'll show a little more about in the next post), was actually only made possible by the CW failure in the E. Med during its impulse. Forced to retreat, no Defensive Shore Bombardment was available, while the Italians were able to use 5 Factors to make this attack worthwhile.

The Panzers rolled through Cartagena, and the assault SE of Bilbao was another semi-victory. 6 units ended up disorganized, and a 7-3 white print INF was killed. The reason I chose that unit was because it was the slowest unit and in the least useful position. I can rebuild it at the end of the turn and have a nice white print INF "magically" appear on the border with the USSR at the start of S/O '40 -- and it might not have been able to get back there otherwise

The riskiest (and luckiest) attack, of course, was on Bilbao. Even with 7 defensive factors doubled by the mountain hex to 14 and redoubled by 14 factors of Shore Bombardment to 28, I managed to get close to 3:1 odds by using every Ground Support Factor I could find -- 32 in all. A good Fractional Odds roll, and then a brilliant attack roll left all of the attackers ready for more. This I did not expect, and I'm very happy with the result -- the attack included 5 Oil dependent units, and with my entire air force needing Oil at the end of this turn, it could have been a very dry summer indeed. As it is, I'll probably have to pick and choose which bombers to reorganize when the time comes. But, and this is a big one, Spain is done. Germany can now focus on preparing for an assault on Portugal and Gibraltar, returning troops to Poland, and even potentially trying to take the Azores and/or get some troops over to help in either N. Africa or Egypt.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Red Prince -- 12/30/2011 7:35:03 PM >

_____________________________

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it!
-Lazarus Long, RAH

(in reply to Red Prince)
Post #: 636
RE: MWiF Global War Hot-Seat (AAR) - 12/30/2011 7:50:40 PM   
Red Prince


Posts: 3686
Joined: 4/8/2011
From: Bangor, Maine, USA
Status: offline 		Now for that additional info about the attack in Egypt:



Under that MOT is a MECH unit. I didn't advance either one into the hex I attacked. The reason for this? The best Wavell can do is get to the hex just west of Alexandria, or he could join the remaining Egyptian TERR. If he moves west of Alexandria, he'll be OOS unless the CW can get some ships back into the E. Med, and at the moment, that's going to be a challenge. If he joins the TERR, he risks being put OOS for a long long time.
-----
Edit: I may be wrong about Wavell heading west of Alexandria . . . as you know, I sometimes have a hard time remembering supply rules.
-----
So, instead of moving the disorganized units (which I knew would be likely to happen) into the attacked hex, next impulse I can move the MTN and Libyan TERR into that hex instead. Then they can make a 2:1 +2 attack on the TERR. That has an 80% success rate, and only a 10% chance of both units being destoyed. Sure, they'll end up disorganized, but trading 1 TERR which can be rebuilt in Africa for 2 Egyptian TERR seems like a fair exchange to me, particularly since the CW has too much to do with its BP, and even if it tries to rebuild these 2 TERR, there will be a total of 16 to choose from, and that means a minimal chance of these both getting rebuilt.

In the meantime, HQ-A Graziani and another unit can be transported into Egypt if the CW continues to fail, particularly once the new NAVs come into play.

Egypt leads to Palestine and Transjordan, and that leads to the alignment of Iraq (and probably the capture of Syria, too).

For all of you shaking your heads about the attacks I made this impulse, saying, "those were ridiculous risks you took", you're right. But get ready for others to do the same thing once MWiF is released. I suspect a lot of players who have never actually found a group to play with will be doing a lot of things like this. See, we don't know all of the old tricks, and so they are new again.

Isn't there something about that in the Bible? Everything old is new again . . . or some such?

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Red Prince -- 12/30/2011 7:53:39 PM >

_____________________________

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it!
-Lazarus Long, RAH

(in reply to Red Prince)
Post #: 637
RE: MWiF Global War Hot-Seat (AAR) - 12/30/2011 8:06:17 PM   
brian brian

 

Posts: 3191
Joined: 11/16/2005
Status: offline 		Long post deleted, beyond noting that it is too hard to watch one side (Kriegsmarine) take risks to shoot at enemy transports while the other side (Royal Navy) won't. The CW should begin fortifying Martinique (seriously) and Montreal (half-seriously, but it seems to be the CW style so far).

World in Flames is a great game of timeless strategy and tactics. The tactics of the game flow from the rule system, and have to be learned, but they do flow from history to a large degree, rewarding combined arms - air/naval; air/ground; armor/infantry, which is, come to think of it, also timeless, think trireme/phalanx, chariot/cavalry/phalanx. Strategy in the game, however, is more purely classic, as well as fairly independent of the game components, and this is why so many people play it I think. I would like to point out to any non-WiF-experienced lurkers reading this that the Axis taking Gibraltar and Chungking in the first year of the war is not an every-game occurrence.

In this game, the CW and China are using poor strategy. The CW has a superior naval force, but is using a strategy of force protection at (almost) all costs, along with poor tactics. Sending inferior forces to fight the Axis (a handful of cruisers in the Med, even a big handful, is not trying), reverses the strategic situation, and the Axis navies have been the superior force with every advantage that entails.

Conversely in China, an inferior force would not use a strategy of force protection until it is now too late.

Be lucky, and all strategy is brilliant. Suffer from bad luck, and good strategy overcomes that.

(in reply to Red Prince)
Post #: 638
RE: MWiF Global War Hot-Seat (AAR) - 12/30/2011 8:50:21 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian

Long post deleted, beyond noting that it is too hard to watch one side (Kriegsmarine) take risks to shoot at enemy transports while the other side (Royal Navy) won't. The CW should begin fortifying Martinique (seriously) and Montreal (half-seriously, but it seems to be the CW style so far).

World in Flames is a great game of timeless strategy and tactics. The tactics of the game flow from the rule system, and have to be learned, but they do flow from history to a large degree, rewarding combined arms - air/naval; air/ground; armor/infantry, which is, come to think of it, also timeless, think trireme/phalanx, chariot/cavalry/phalanx. Strategy in the game, however, is more purely classic, as well as fairly independent of the game components, and this is why so many people play it I think. I would like to point out to any non-WiF-experienced lurkers reading this that the Axis taking Gibraltar and Chungking in the first year of the war is not an every-game occurrence.

In this game, the CW and China are using poor strategy. The CW has a superior naval force, but is using a strategy of force protection at (almost) all costs, along with poor tactics. Sending inferior forces to fight the Axis (a handful of cruisers in the Med, even a big handful, is not trying), reverses the strategic situation, and the Axis navies have been the superior force with every advantage that entails.

Conversely in China, an inferior force would not use a strategy of force protection until it is now too late.

Be lucky, and all strategy is brilliant. Suffer from bad luck, and good strategy overcomes that.


I agree with that.

WIF is like almost all war games in that the goal is to make overwhelming attacks. When defending, you should use slightly less forces than the attacker can concentrate (e.g., Napoleon at Jena). If the attacker wants to make 2:1 attacks, so be it. For the Egyptians,I would have taken the Assault table. There is a reasonable chance that both attackers would be destroyed. Then let the Italians rebuild the Mechanized and Motorized and transport them over from Italy again (after the requisite delay for them to be built). Meanwhile the territorial has a good chance of reappearing next turn in Egypt at a cost of 2 BP.

Concentration of forces when attacking applies to all branches of the armed forces: air, land, and sea.

The only times the defender should avoid combat are: when faced by the an in-supply Wehrmacht and at sea when lacking air support and the enemy have naval air factors.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to brian brian)
Post #: 639
RE: MWiF Global War Hot-Seat (AAR) - 12/30/2011 8:51:19 PM   
Red Prince


Posts: 3686
Joined: 4/8/2011
From: Bangor, Maine, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian

Long post deleted, beyond noting that it is too hard to watch one side (Kriegsmarine) take risks to shoot at enemy transports while the other side (Royal Navy) won't. The CW should begin fortifying Martinique (seriously) and Montreal (half-seriously, but it seems to be the CW style so far).

There has been only one occassion when the Royal Navy failed to shoot at enemy transports when it had the chance, and that was "in exchange" for the evacuation of the Barcelona INF going unhindered (which you are all welcome to disagree with). Those transports had to traverse 2 sea areas with CW forces . . . the first was given to them for free, but the second one the CW tried to intercept and failed. What more do you want? Likewise, the Kriegsmarine took advantage of a situation caused by unexpected weather (and a risky move on my part with the CW). Even so, things could have been a lot worse for the CW, as 2 of the 3 TRS escaped unharmed.

quote:

World in Flames is a great game of timeless strategy and tactics. The tactics of the game flow from the rule system, and have to be learned, but they do flow from history to a large degree, rewarding combined arms - air/naval; air/ground; armor/infantry, which is, come to think of it, also timeless, think trireme/phalanx, chariot/cavalry/phalanx. Strategy in the game, however, is more purely classic, as well as fairly independent of the game components, and this is why so many people play it I think. I would like to point out to any non-WiF-experienced lurkers reading this that the Axis taking Gibraltar and Chungking in the first year of the war is not an every-game occurrence.

Agreed. However, the European scale map may change some of this in China. There is a lot more territory to defend with the same number of units, and that means fewer opportunities for fully-stacked hexes. MWiF scale may change the dynamics of the game to some degree that we can't know until several hundred games are run by two seperate opponents.

quote:

In this game, the CW and China are using poor strategy. The CW has a superior naval force, but is using a strategy of force protection at (almost) all costs, along with poor tactics. Sending inferior forces to fight the Axis (a handful of cruisers in the Med, even a big handful, is not trying), reverses the strategic situation, and the Axis navies have been the superior force with every advantage that entails.

I disagree with much of this, but others might not.

The CW used extremely poor strategy in its setup. Two days later I was hospitalized and delerious with pneumonia. That's my only excuse. Since then, I've been trying to follow (sometimes conflicting) advice from forum members. I was urged to keep the BB near the UK after the transport debacle, so I did. I was then urged to charge into the Med with whatever I had available, so I did. I needed to set up enough Defensive Shore Bombardment to help both Bilbao and Gibraltar, so I did.

At no point did I send a force up against the Italians that was unable to take them on successfully.

The CW has gotten rotten rolls for the most part in its battles at sea. Is that poor strategy? No. It's bad luck. Is it a poor tactical decision to abort a force from a sea area once it is outgunned and unlikely to damage the opponent without being destroyed? I don't thinks so, but maybe I'm wrong. If I stay to fight to the death every time the CW is in that situation, perhaps I'll damage an Italian cruiser, but when do you draw the line? At some point the losses will add up so that the CW no longer has Naval superiority anywhere.

The only real "cheat" I've used is setting up the situation that allowed Yugoslavia to be aligned by Italy, and that only required the USSR to claim Bessarabia. This should not have had any effect on the naval war. Is it possible I am simply playing a good (and lucky) game with the Italian and German fleets?

The errors that I can be accused of making idiotically are the move of forces into Gibraltar too early, but I've already explained why the BEF couldn't enter France when it "should have" -- a bug that wouldn't allow Gort and company to debark (since fixed). The other ones are poor setups in China (which I took from a post by Steve -- sorry to lay the blame on you, Steve, but my setups never seem to stop the Japanese either) and placing the wrong unit in Tangier.

quote:

Conversely in China, an inferior force would not use a strategy of force protection until it is now too late.

As far as this goes, until the last impulse, I have taken the defenses for France and China directly from suggestions found in this forum, so you can't blame this problem on inexperience. By the time I did choose a defensive position that was considered "wrong" by forum members, it was already too late for the Nationalists. And taking Chungking was only acheived by a major sacrifice on the part of the Japanese.

quote:

Be lucky, and all strategy is brilliant. Suffer from bad luck, and good strategy overcomes that.

I'll counter this with: Take risks and get lucky, and all strategy is brilliant. Suffer from extremely bad luck, and good strategy can't do a damn thing to help.

I apologize if this post sounds harsh, but I'm doing my best to play both sides well. I'm also doing my best to follow the advice of the forum members who post here. Sorry to say this, but even if the advice is good, it isn't always going to work.

I've noted an interesting fact, though: most of the advice has been for playing the Allied side of things. Does this mean you approve of the way I play the Axis?

_____________________________

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it!
-Lazarus Long, RAH

(in reply to brian brian)
Post #: 640
RE: MWiF Global War Hot-Seat (AAR) - 12/30/2011 8:52:41 PM   
Red Prince


Posts: 3686
Joined: 4/8/2011
From: Bangor, Maine, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets


quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian

Long post deleted, beyond noting that it is too hard to watch one side (Kriegsmarine) take risks to shoot at enemy transports while the other side (Royal Navy) won't. The CW should begin fortifying Martinique (seriously) and Montreal (half-seriously, but it seems to be the CW style so far).

World in Flames is a great game of timeless strategy and tactics. The tactics of the game flow from the rule system, and have to be learned, but they do flow from history to a large degree, rewarding combined arms - air/naval; air/ground; armor/infantry, which is, come to think of it, also timeless, think trireme/phalanx, chariot/cavalry/phalanx. Strategy in the game, however, is more purely classic, as well as fairly independent of the game components, and this is why so many people play it I think. I would like to point out to any non-WiF-experienced lurkers reading this that the Axis taking Gibraltar and Chungking in the first year of the war is not an every-game occurrence.

In this game, the CW and China are using poor strategy. The CW has a superior naval force, but is using a strategy of force protection at (almost) all costs, along with poor tactics. Sending inferior forces to fight the Axis (a handful of cruisers in the Med, even a big handful, is not trying), reverses the strategic situation, and the Axis navies have been the superior force with every advantage that entails.

Conversely in China, an inferior force would not use a strategy of force protection until it is now too late.

Be lucky, and all strategy is brilliant. Suffer from bad luck, and good strategy overcomes that.


I agree with that.

WIF is like almost all war games in that the goal is to make overwhelming attacks. When defending, you should use slightly less forces than the attacker can concentrate (e.g., Napoleon at Jena). If the attacker wants to make 2:1 attacks, so be it. For the Egyptians,I would have taken the Assault table. There is a reasonable chance that both attackers would be destroyed. Then let the Italians rebuild the Mechanized and Motorized and transport them over from Italy again (after the requisite delay for them to be built). Meanwhile the territorial has a good chance of reappearing next turn in Egypt at a cost of 2 BP.

Concentration of forces when attacking applies to all branches of the armed forces: air, land, and sea.

The only times the defender should avoid combat are: when faced by the an in-supply Wehrmacht and at sea when lacking air support and the enemy have naval air factors.

The CW didn't have the choice of CRT, the Italians did because of the MECH.

And, please recall that the CW has no Naval Air Factors in the Med. When it did, the bad luck eliminated them.

< Message edited by Red Prince -- 12/30/2011 8:55:09 PM >

_____________________________

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it!
-Lazarus Long, RAH

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 641
RE: MWiF Global War Hot-Seat (AAR) - 12/30/2011 8:57:01 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline 		The attack in Egypt by the Italians was premature. They should have waited for the other 2 units to join in the combat. That way they would have had a territorial available to take a loss.

I can't comment on the other attacks. That would require having the entire board at my disposal and being able to analyze every stack for choosing which hexes to attack and which units to include in the attacks. I doubt that any of the forum readers can seriously critique most of the attacks without doing the same. Defense involves fewer units, which are visible. Hence the preponderance of comments about defending vis-a-vis land operations.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Red Prince)
Post #: 642
RE: MWiF Global War Hot-Seat (AAR) - 12/30/2011 10:06:30 PM   
Centuur


Posts: 8802
Joined: 6/3/2011
From: Hoorn (NED).
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Red Prince

Someone suggested hoping for luck in surprise points against the NAV in the E. Med (for the CW).

Well, I tried it, and here were the results:

CW initiates combat in the E. Med, using CA Devonshire; Allied Roll: 1, Axis: 7
.....Italy chooses Naval Air Combat, CW uses 6 Surprise Points to Increase AA Columns
.....AA Rolls: 2, 1 (reduction of 1 Air-to-Sea Factor)
.....Italy Aborts CA Liverpool

With any luck at all, the -1/2 (lowest of 2 rolls) should have either eliminated both Air-to-Sea Factors of the NAV or Aborted it from combat. Guess what? I'm starting to think the CW doesn't want to keep the Med. I let this attempt go on for a total of 4 combat rounds, and the CW didn't get lucky again. In fact, the Axis didn't fail to find again, while the CW only found in 1 more round. After the first round (failure by the CW to eliminate the NAV), the Axis was able to use its Surprise Points to clear the NAV through without AA fire.

Final results:

Italy was completely undamaged by the attack . . . and managed to damage/abort a CA and abort 4 others, leaving only 4 sea-worthy ships remaining.

So, the CW was forced to abort to Suez or risk losing even more ships. If it stayed, it would have had 9 Surface Factors on 6 ships (-X/1D/3A) vs. 18 Surface Factors on 4 ships (1X/-D/1A) or 2 unstoppable Air-to-Sea Factors on 4 ships (-X/-D/2A), so the only hope of salvaging any kind of victory required search rolls that gave the CW at least 4 Surprise Points to use to choose the combat type. That seemed unlikely.

I tried, with what I had available, but failed. You can say a lot of things about my game as the CW, but you can't say I didn't try.
-----
Edit: Correction: the CW aborted to Port Said, not to Suez, since Suez is not a Major Port

You should have spent 4 surprise point by the CW to select the combat type. You had to choose a surface combat and aim those large guns on enemy ships in stead of aiming them at enemy aircraft...


_____________________________

Peter

(in reply to Red Prince)
Post #: 643
RE: MWiF Global War Hot-Seat (AAR) - 12/30/2011 10:15:36 PM   
brian brian

 

Posts: 3191
Joined: 11/16/2005
Status: offline 		I haven't seen a single BB or CV of the Royal Navy's in the Med, just lots of cruisers = inferior force. I can't see the whole game, but a poor set-up can be fixed in a single naval impulse, to a nearly global degree, and it's now the 4th turn. When the Royal Navy fought in the North Sea, it sent out 2 BB, again an inferior force. The Royal Navy has a superior force overall, but seems to refuse to fight with local superiority, which it can easily achieve against the Euro-Axis, though this is challenging when operating on exterior lines compared to interior lines (not basing sufficient capital ships in Gibraltar is just not good). Just this turn the RN refused to sail from Plymouth to the West Med and sent the Spanish instead, yet another inferior force. A superior force could handle a bad roll or two as BBs have defense factors that can take bad luck, CA's don't. The RN is also repeatedly fighting last turn's war. There is no value to the North Sea any more except as a trip-wire to discourage Kriegsmarine raids and just a couple-three-four BBs can cover Bilbao, perhaps with one CV or enough AA cruisers to discourage the German NAV-3, that should leave the BattleCruisers, several CVs and even a few R Class BBs in a lower box to contest the West Med with. Instead the Home Fleet mostly sat home waiting for the "perfect" battle opportunity and will soon be holding on for dear life in the Atlantic. The Axis hold Tangier and won't be dislodged. Gibraltar is doomed.

Here is what I deleted on China:

I have never wrestled with a decision about surrendering China because I don't find it so difficult to defend the place. I think this applies on either scale map, for any experienced paper-WiF players aghast at these Chinese results on the new scale. I have not watched the Chinese manuever much on the screen-shots beyond a few glances, but I do not think they tried defending with double stacks in the mountains, as was suggested by several of us early on. China needs to do that, as well as picking the Blitz table whenever they have a retreat route, which is largely under their control as they manuever their land units. They should retreat whenever necessary to have a retreat route, and before the Japanese get their maximum possible attack built-up, which should be slow in mountains while they also take occasional combined impulses to reinforce in China. Instead I think they held in too-forward positions and lost their units in non-essential areas (Fukien in general) faster than they could replace them, as well as picking the Assault table in a higher-risk choice of hoping to disorganize the Japanese while still losing their single units at high odds. Their HQs and oil also need to remain behind the front, retreating and preserving themselves and allowing the regular combat forces to stay in supply while they retreat. The Chinese have such excellent defensive terrain that they shouldn't just crumple like this; all of the preceding would be a force protection strategy, rather than a gamble and hope the Japanese roll low type choice. The Chinese are weak and need to be conservative until their forces grow in size.

Your Axis have been playing well, this game featured a better USE management of at least DOWing Greece in J/F 40, though the Allies have been playing directly into their hands over and over by ceding control of the seas and generally defending rear areas where the Axis will be next year (Polynesia?) rather than front-line areas where the Axis is today. Australia looks threatened to you now because you spent perhaps 20 BPs on offensive units (they'll wish they had AMPHs soon) for the CW, rather than sufficient heavy ground troops (INF, MOT), when the Axis are surging across the map.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 644
RE: MWiF Global War Hot-Seat (AAR) - 12/30/2011 10:56:52 PM   
Centuur


Posts: 8802
Joined: 6/3/2011
From: Hoorn (NED).
Status: offline 		Always, the right Generals and Admirals are sitting on there asses, drinking tea and aren't in command. You however, are the one in command of the CW forces. It isn't necessary for you to make excuses, since you've pronounced yourself to be an newbie on the WiF gameboard.

I've come to the conclusion that the mistakes (of which especially the losses of CW controlled TRS are really hurting the Allied cause) you have made are the ones a new player makes. That's the reason why new players should always start playing Axis countries (and not Allied ones), since they usually are better with attacking than with defending. By doing so, the new player learns how things are going and is also capable of seeing how especially the CW is played. The CW is by far the most difficult MP to play.

I see you are constantly exploiting advantages on the Axis side. However, you fail to see the same advantages on the allied side. This is due to the fact that you are very worried about the loss of units. Why for example are you so worried about losses to the Spanish fleet? You shouldn't be, since this worry means you're constantly moving away from fighting the enemy and therefore giving to much room for the Axis to exploit the situation. You should try to stand ground, throw cheap units in the path of the Germans, attacking key units (especially TRS). There is always a 50% possibility of the Axis not finding you're Spanish fleet in the Western Med. What if they are killed? Is it hurting the CW war effort if Franco's fleet is going to die? I don't think so.
Look at the post you have written about the Japanese attacking Australia in the surprise impulse. Let him do so, if he can. Trust me, you need oil first with Japan, before he is able to do all kinds of things in regards of attacking Australia. So no invasions in surprise impulses in Australia. If the Japanese do so, he'll get in trouble later, since it isn't easy to invade the oil hexes without a surprise impulse.
The problem is that the longer you keep playing this way, the faster the CW is going to get weaker and weaker. Both China and France are examples of how the Axis can slowly demolish the key forces necessary for a reasonable defense (I'm not saying a defense which can hold against the enemy). The CW is suffering from this too.

Regarding the attacks the Axis made last impulse: I think they are extremely lucky here, even with all those disorganised units appearing on the map. There are going to be some promotions of Generals to Fieldmarshalls, I believe. The Bilbao attack I might have done an impulse later, getting more units in place. Chungking I would have attacked this impulse, looking at the defenses the Chinese had in place. I like to gamble a little bit (but not as much as you did). The Italian attack in Egypt was foolish and could have been very, very costly for them. Lucky bastards. Don't ever do that again, since there comes a time when luck is going against you and loosing a MOT and a MECH is very, very bloody for the Italians...

Oh, the Japanese are the ones to DoW Portugal, aren't they...




_____________________________

Peter

(in reply to Centuur)
Post #: 645
RE: MWiF Global War Hot-Seat (AAR) - 12/30/2011 11:14:49 PM   
composer99


Posts: 2923
Joined: 6/6/2005
From: Ottawa, Canada
Status: offline 		Generally, I think your Axis play has been strong, aided in part by your weaker Allied play. To be fair, the CW is comparatively very hard to play with its global reach but also the need to build up an army and air force essentially from scratch, the need to defend far-flung convoy lines, and the need to balance early offensive and defensive builds.

I also won't complain about low-odds attacks. It's hard to get "good" (in terms of probability of success + staying organized) attacks on the 1d10 Assault CRT, compared to the CRT I play with (the 2d10), especially against city hexes in mountains. Really, as long as you have the losses to suffer a worst-case result, any land attack is acceptable. He who dares, wins, and all that.

The naval game is also very difficult to master and can be subject to wild swings. The addition of CLiF units tends to favour the Axis IMO since they reduce the relative Allied advantage in numbers while giving the Axis more cannon fodder to keep their BBs and sealift in play.

Things have not been helped by the bugs which occured, which IMO also favoured the Axis - the Gort debark bug, the Malta bug forcing the relocation of the CW defences, and what I understand is a bug remaining preventing Allied resource/bp lending overseas?

I think one way of getting on top of the CW's naval and garrison issues is to take a break for a day or two, then to come back and look at the map with an eye to where the CW needs to have land & air units and to allocate naval assets, with the goal of having a force in each theatre/area of operations equal to 150% of the available comparable Axis forces.

Australia may seem defenceless at the moment, and for good reason: in 1939-1940 it has two regular land units (one of which must be built) and two TERR, which may or may not ever appear in a game. 1941 adds but one additional Aussie unit to the force pool. However, as long as one of these units is on the map and blocking the routes to Canberra the Japanese need to field a real army to conquer Australia. Reinforcing Australia is a good place for American infantry units which aren't quality enough to go to Europe or to be used for offensives in the Pacific (or just as a staging ground for the American forces pushing through along the southern perimeter of the Pacific).

_____________________________

~ Composer99

(in reply to brian brian)
Post #: 646
RE: MWiF Global War Hot-Seat (AAR) - 12/31/2011 12:24:57 AM   
Red Prince


Posts: 3686
Joined: 4/8/2011
From: Bangor, Maine, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Centuur


quote:

ORIGINAL: Red Prince

Someone suggested hoping for luck in surprise points against the NAV in the E. Med (for the CW).

Well, I tried it, and here were the results:

CW initiates combat in the E. Med, using CA Devonshire; Allied Roll: 1, Axis: 7
.....Italy chooses Naval Air Combat, CW uses 6 Surprise Points to Increase AA Columns
.....AA Rolls: 2, 1 (reduction of 1 Air-to-Sea Factor)
.....Italy Aborts CA Liverpool

With any luck at all, the -1/2 (lowest of 2 rolls) should have either eliminated both Air-to-Sea Factors of the NAV or Aborted it from combat. Guess what? I'm starting to think the CW doesn't want to keep the Med. I let this attempt go on for a total of 4 combat rounds, and the CW didn't get lucky again. In fact, the Axis didn't fail to find again, while the CW only found in 1 more round. After the first round (failure by the CW to eliminate the NAV), the Axis was able to use its Surprise Points to clear the NAV through without AA fire.

Final results:

Italy was completely undamaged by the attack . . . and managed to damage/abort a CA and abort 4 others, leaving only 4 sea-worthy ships remaining.

So, the CW was forced to abort to Suez or risk losing even more ships. If it stayed, it would have had 9 Surface Factors on 6 ships (-X/1D/3A) vs. 18 Surface Factors on 4 ships (1X/-D/1A) or 2 unstoppable Air-to-Sea Factors on 4 ships (-X/-D/2A), so the only hope of salvaging any kind of victory required search rolls that gave the CW at least 4 Surprise Points to use to choose the combat type. That seemed unlikely.

I tried, with what I had available, but failed. You can say a lot of things about my game as the CW, but you can't say I didn't try.
-----
Edit: Correction: the CW aborted to Port Said, not to Suez, since Suez is not a Major Port

You should have spent 4 surprise point by the CW to select the combat type. You had to choose a surface combat and aim those large guns on enemy ships in stead of aiming them at enemy aircraft...


You're probably right, but I wanted to test out the suggestion. Hindsight, you know. If that NAV had been aborted or shot down, surface combats would have continued.

< Message edited by Red Prince -- 12/31/2011 12:25:42 AM >

_____________________________

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it!
-Lazarus Long, RAH

(in reply to Centuur)
Post #: 647
RE: MWiF Global War Hot-Seat (AAR) - 12/31/2011 1:11:53 AM   
Red Prince


Posts: 3686
Joined: 4/8/2011
From: Bangor, Maine, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian

I haven't seen a single BB or CV of the Royal Navy's in the Med, just lots of cruisers = inferior force. I can't see the whole game, but a poor set-up can be fixed in a single naval impulse, to a nearly global degree, and it's now the 4th turn.

Not when the setup was as bad as the one I started with, and also not when you are trying to satisfy as many suggestions as possible. I had my BB fleet at Gibraltar and was told I needed to move it back to Plymouth after the TRS debacle. So I did.

quote:

When the Royal Navy fought in the North Sea, it sent out 2 BB, again an inferior force.

You are mistaken. The RN fought in the North Sea defensively and unexpectedly in bad weather -- during the first impulse of a turn before it was able to reinstate its full fleet -- with several useless CV because of the weather, a few BB, and some cruisers. The Germans got lucky and got to pick the TRS. Then, when they stuck around, the entire BB fleet of 8-9 ships was sent to destroy the Germans. And failed. That isn't my fault.

And, the reason you haven't seen a CV in the Med is because there haven't been adequate CVP to load onto them. Why send a CV out without any planes? Please make sure of your facts before criticizing my gameplay.

quote:

The Royal Navy has a superior force overall, but seems to refuse to fight with local superiority, which it can easily achieve against the Euro-Axis, though this is challenging when operating on exterior lines compared to interior lines (not basing sufficient capital ships in Gibraltar is just not good).

As above, I did base them there, and was then told I needed to send them back to Plymouth. I can't satisfy everyone at once.

quote:

Just this turn the RN refused to sail from Plymouth to the West Med and sent the Spanish instead, yet another inferior force.

What ships were to be used? The BB needed to be in the Bay of Biscay to support Bilbao. Besides, sailing them from Plymouth to the W. Med puts them in the 1 Box, where they have to be extremely lucky to be included in a combat.

quote:

A superior force could handle a bad roll or two as BBs have defense factors that can take bad luck, CA's don't. The RN is also repeatedly fighting last turn's war. There is no value to the North Sea any more except as a trip-wire to discourage Kriegsmarine raids and just a couple-three-four BBs can cover Bilbao, perhaps with one CV or enough AA cruisers to discourage the German NAV-3, that should leave the BattleCruisers, several CVs and even a few R Class BBs in a lower box to contest the West Med with. Instead the Home Fleet mostly sat home waiting for the "perfect" battle opportunity and will soon be holding on for dear life in the Atlantic. The Axis hold Tangier and won't be dislodged. Gibraltar is doomed.

You are mistaken again. It took 7 BB to supply enough Shore Bombardment to make Bilbao a risky attack. I am not fighting last turn's war. The North Sea fleet has 9 ships in it at this point, and those are there to prevent a Sea Lion. The Bay of Biscay also needs to be protected from the 4 SUBs the Italians have in Bordeaux, and the Cape St. Vincent needs protection from the SUBs, too. There are currently too many ships in Cape St. Vincent, including CVs, because I am trying to get the fleet you want to the Med. Range and movement point limitations have made that difficult.

quote:

Here is what I deleted on China:

I have never wrestled with a decision about surrendering China because I don't find it so difficult to defend the place. I think this applies on either scale map, for any experienced paper-WiF players aghast at these Chinese results on the new scale. I have not watched the Chinese manuever much on the screen-shots beyond a few glances, but I do not think they tried defending with double stacks in the mountains, as was suggested by several of us early on. China needs to do that, as well as picking the Blitz table whenever they have a retreat route, which is largely under their control as they manuever their land units. They should retreat whenever necessary to have a retreat route, and before the Japanese get their maximum possible attack built-up, which should be slow in mountains while they also take occasional combined impulses to reinforce in China. Instead I think they held in too-forward positions and lost their units in non-essential areas (Fukien in general) faster than they could replace them, as well as picking the Assault table in a higher-risk choice of hoping to disorganize the Japanese while still losing their single units at high odds. Their HQs and oil also need to remain behind the front, retreating and preserving themselves and allowing the regular combat forces to stay in supply while they retreat. The Chinese have such excellent defensive terrain that they shouldn't just crumple like this; all of the preceding would be a force protection strategy, rather than a gamble and hope the Japanese roll low type choice. The Chinese are weak and need to be conservative until their forces grow in size.


Two comments:

1. The initial setup was bad. That led to other problems.
2. If the Chinese double-stack on the European scale map, the Japanese could easily out-maneuver them. Have you played a game with the new scale map? (that's a real question -- not sarcasm) If not, try it and see what it's like.

quote:

Your Axis have been playing well, this game featured a better USE management of at least DOWing Greece in J/F 40, though the Allies have been playing directly into their hands over and over by ceding control of the seas and generally defending rear areas where the Axis will be next year (Polynesia?) rather than front-line areas where the Axis is today. Australia looks threatened to you now because you spent perhaps 20 BPs on offensive units (they'll wish they had AMPHs soon) for the CW, rather than sufficient heavy ground troops (INF, MOT), when the Axis are surging across the map.

For the record, I corrected my CW builds from last game. Everyone wants something different, and I can't satisfy everyone. I'm sorry your view didn't take hold.

I also think your "ceding control of the seas" comment is a little out of context. The only seas that have been "lost" are in the Med. If you are beaten at sea, is it ceding control? Or is it a defeat? For land units in Southeast Asia, see the posts earlier about those. I'm not going to repeat myself. And, with a limited number of transports (please get over the fact that I should have two more -- I don't, so deal with it), how am I supposed to reinforce everything that needs to be reinforced?

And, I will ask you this: do you really think that the 4 ships in French Polynesia would have made the difference in any of these battles?

If I spent the BP on AMPHs, you'd be complaining that I should have built more land units; if I spent more on land units, you'd be complaining about the lack of AMPHs. Yes, they'll wish they had them soon, but wishes are just that. If I had 30 BP to spend each turn from the start of the game, maybe I could have built everything you want built.
-----
Until now, you've had some very constructive comments. I'm doing the best I can with a game that isn't completely bug-free, and with the advice I've been given. As someone mentioned before (Centuur, I think), it's hard for me to maintain a consistent naval strategy when I am inundated with things that need to be done ASAP, without the resources to do it.

I've created this AAR so that people can enjoy a view of the game, and so that they can see that it can be played through to completion, not to demonstrate that I am an expert player. It has been fun for me, and I welcome criticism, but I don't welcome abuse, and this disagreement is beginning to feel like abuse. If you don't agree with my gameplay, suggest something useful for current and future impulses, but please stop telling me how stupid I've been up to this point.

If it is really annoying you (my previous playing), take a break from it. Come back in a few days and see if you like it any better.

Three final notes:

1. Please re-read post #1 on page 1 of this AAR. It describes the goals I began with.
2. If the Axis had been less successful, things would not seem so urgent.
3. Frankly, I think I've planned and played the Axis extremely well so far, and combined with extremely bad luck for the Allies, the CW is bound to be in a fearful position.

_____________________________

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it!
-Lazarus Long, RAH

(in reply to brian brian)
Post #: 648
RE: MWiF Global War Hot-Seat (AAR) - 12/31/2011 1:21:11 AM   
Red Prince


Posts: 3686
Joined: 4/8/2011
From: Bangor, Maine, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Centuur

Regarding the attacks the Axis made last impulse: I think they are extremely lucky here, even with all those disorganised units appearing on the map. There are going to be some promotions of Generals to Fieldmarshalls, I believe. The Bilbao attack I might have done an impulse later, getting more units in place. Chungking I would have attacked this impulse, looking at the defenses the Chinese had in place. I like to gamble a little bit (but not as much as you did). The Italian attack in Egypt was foolish and could have been very, very costly for them. Lucky bastards. Don't ever do that again, since there comes a time when luck is going against you and loosing a MOT and a MECH is very, very bloody for the Italians...

A 3:1 +2 Blitz attack had only a 20% chance of losing 1 unit. If I waited another impulse, the CW would have had Defensive Shore Bombardment in place, and I would never have had even this good an opportunity again -- even if I left it until next turn when HQ-I Graziani and the Rome MIL might manage to get into the battle.

I still don't see it as foolish. Even if I had lost the MOT, I felt it was the right opportunity to begin clearing the path toward Wavell . . . before the CW can bring in reinforcements.


_____________________________

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it!
-Lazarus Long, RAH

(in reply to Centuur)
Post #: 649
RE: MWiF Global War Hot-Seat (AAR) - 12/31/2011 1:28:37 AM   
Red Prince


Posts: 3686
Joined: 4/8/2011
From: Bangor, Maine, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: composer99

Generally, I think your Axis play has been strong, aided in part by your weaker Allied play. To be fair, the CW is comparatively very hard to play with its global reach but also the need to build up an army and air force essentially from scratch, the need to defend far-flung convoy lines, and the need to balance early offensive and defensive builds.

I also won't complain about low-odds attacks. It's hard to get "good" (in terms of probability of success + staying organized) attacks on the 1d10 Assault CRT, compared to the CRT I play with (the 2d10), especially against city hexes in mountains. Really, as long as you have the losses to suffer a worst-case result, any land attack is acceptable. He who dares, wins, and all that.

The naval game is also very difficult to master and can be subject to wild swings. The addition of CLiF units tends to favour the Axis IMO since they reduce the relative Allied advantage in numbers while giving the Axis more cannon fodder to keep their BBs and sealift in play.

Things have not been helped by the bugs which occured, which IMO also favoured the Axis - the Gort debark bug, the Malta bug forcing the relocation of the CW defences, and what I understand is a bug remaining preventing Allied resource/bp lending overseas?

I think one way of getting on top of the CW's naval and garrison issues is to take a break for a day or two, then to come back and look at the map with an eye to where the CW needs to have land & air units and to allocate naval assets, with the goal of having a force in each theatre/area of operations equal to 150% of the available comparable Axis forces.

Australia may seem defenceless at the moment, and for good reason: in 1939-1940 it has two regular land units (one of which must be built) and two TERR, which may or may not ever appear in a game. 1941 adds but one additional Aussie unit to the force pool. However, as long as one of these units is on the map and blocking the routes to Canberra the Japanese need to field a real army to conquer Australia. Reinforcing Australia is a good place for American infantry units which aren't quality enough to go to Europe or to be used for offensives in the Pacific (or just as a staging ground for the American forces pushing through along the southern perimeter of the Pacific).

You're right about the first two bugs being in the favor of the Axis, but the 3rd one hasn't yet come into play -- the Entry Options aren't available yet. By the time they do come into play, it is possible this bug may be fixed. I don't know. The solution is known, but Steve has higher priorities at the moment. By the way, this is only a BP bug, not a RP bug. Those arrive as intended.

Again, for the record: the Australia scenario was/is not a serious proposal. It was simply to demonstrate one of the annoying things that can occur if the CW abandons all of its Far-East posessions when China is on the verge of collapse.
-----
Almost forgot to say this, but I did take about 4 days off, not looking at the game at all. Apparently it didn't help.

< Message edited by Red Prince -- 12/31/2011 1:35:57 AM >

_____________________________

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it!
-Lazarus Long, RAH

(in reply to composer99)
Post #: 650
RE: MWiF Global War Hot-Seat (AAR) - 12/31/2011 2:40:41 PM   
Klydon


Posts: 2251
Joined: 11/28/2010
Status: offline 		Hang in there Aaron.

Honestly, I think its a good sign the AAR has gotten so much attention and people are "in to it" as far as advice/critisim. While I agree some posters need to remember their place and be a bit more courteous, sometimes it is very hard to do that in the heat of a campaign when things are going hot and heavy. It is exciting to see the game up to this point as it shows what progress has been made and the possiblities of the game make everyone itch to get their hands on it.

I think one of the things that people are overlooking is just how bad the CW's naval battle luck has been. I don't recall a die roll that has gone their way yet really and the Axis have had more than their share of luck when it comes to the naval actions. Such results are going to understandibly put the RN under even more severe pressure than normal. Add to the fact that the French fleet is no longer around to help out, the RN is in the "stand alone" phase of the game and their CV air just sucks horribly at this point. It takes awhile to fix.

(in reply to Red Prince)
Post #: 651
RE: MWiF Global War Hot-Seat (AAR) - 12/31/2011 2:56:48 PM   
Red Prince


Posts: 3686
Joined: 4/8/2011
From: Bangor, Maine, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Klydon

Hang in there Aaron.

Honestly, I think its a good sign the AAR has gotten so much attention and people are "in to it" as far as advice/critisim. While I agree some posters need to remember their place and be a bit more courteous, sometimes it is very hard to do that in the heat of a campaign when things are going hot and heavy. It is exciting to see the game up to this point as it shows what progress has been made and the possiblities of the game make everyone itch to get their hands on it.

I think one of the things that people are overlooking is just how bad the CW's naval battle luck has been. I don't recall a die roll that has gone their way yet really and the Axis have had more than their share of luck when it comes to the naval actions. Such results are going to understandibly put the RN under even more severe pressure than normal. Add to the fact that the French fleet is no longer around to help out, the RN is in the "stand alone" phase of the game and their CV air just sucks horribly at this point. It takes awhile to fix.

Thanks you for your supportive perspective, not only on the difficulties with the CW & French fleets, but also on the enthusiasm this AAR generates. I do understand that given the chance, others might do things differently.

I also want to say that to in order to run 2-3 impulses, including notes and screenshots and comments on my actions, it takes between 6 and 7 hours in all. By the end of this time (and the beta-testers know this about me, so I should probably tell you guys, too) I tend to be very tired. When I'm tired, I get cranky. I apologize for that.

I'm going to attempt to look up in my notes (which total 33 pages and 13,000 words for 4 1/2 turns) as much as I can find about the French and CW fleet actions that led us to this point. If it is easy enough to do, I will post it shortly.

_____________________________

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it!
-Lazarus Long, RAH

(in reply to Klydon)
Post #: 652
RE: MWiF Global War Hot-Seat (AAR) - 12/31/2011 3:51:00 PM   
Red Prince


Posts: 3686
Joined: 4/8/2011
From: Bangor, Maine, USA
Status: offline 		I'm afraid I don't have die rolls for every round of combat, nor do I have the exact number of ships on each side. That is not needed for the debugging I do with this information. The best I can do is show you what happened and offer a summary for each battle.

S/O '39

Impulse: 3
.....Weather: 3
.....Italy DOW France (Surprise)
Italy initiates combat in the W. Med, using CL Diaz; no Air Support; Axis Roll: 3, Allies: 6; Italy includes 3 & 4 Sections
.....Italy has 10 Surprise Points to spend: 8 go toward Increasing Columns, 2 go toward Decreasing Columns
.....Italy Destroys CL Jeanne D'Arc, CA Suffren, CA Algerie, Aborts BB Lorraine, BB Jean Bart, 1/2 Aborts BB Provence, BB Bretagne
.....France Damages CL Diaz, Aborts CL Attendolo
.....Italy chooses to Fight On; France chooses to Abort from Combat
.....Italy aborts its 2 units to La Spezia; France aborts its 5 units to Marseilles
Italy initiates combat in the Italian Coast using CL Taranto; no Air Support; Axis Roll: 2, Allies: 8
.....Italy has 12 Surprise Points to spend: 8 go toward Increasing Columns, 4 go toward Decreasing Columns
.....Italy Destroys CA Duguay Trouin, CL Emile Bertin, CL Gloire, Damage-1/2 Aborts CL La Galissonniere, 1/2 Aborts BB Strasbourg, BB Dunkerque
.....France Damage/Aborts CL Taranto
.....Italy chooses to Fight On; France chooses to Abort from Combat
.....Italy aborts its 1 unit to La Spezia; France aborts its 8 units through the W. Med; Italy attempts to Intercept using CL Cadorna; Roll: 3 (Success)
France must fight through from the 0 Box; Allied Roll: 4
.....Italy has 8 Surprise Points to spend: 4 go toward Increasing Columns, 4 go toward Decreasing Columns
.....Italy Destroyed CL La Galissonniere, CL Georges Leygues, Damaged CA Foch
.....France Damaged CL Cadorna (CL Barbiano instead due to bug fix)
.....Italy chooses to Fight On; France chooses to Abort from Combat
.....Italy aborts its 1 unit to La Spezia; France aborts its 6 units to Malta (due to the bug issue)

German SS Div takes Copenhagen, 6-4 INF takes Frederikshavn (CP captured, both CA escaped to Scapa Flow)
German 6-5 MOT moves W to Isolate the NED INF, allowing the 8-6 ARM in Essen to overrun it and circle the coast all the way to Rotterdam (2 CP captured, 1 destroyed, 2 escaped to Liverpool, TRS destroyed, SUB escaped to Liverpool)

Results
Germany:
Destroys: 1 x Convoy, 1 x TRS
Captures 3 x Convoy

Italy:
Destroys 5 x CL, 3 x CA
Damages 1 x CL, 1 x CA

France:
Damages 3 x CL
Aborts 1 x CL

All French ships remaining Aborted from Combat


Impulse: 5
.....Weather: 6
.....Italy DOW CW (Surprise)
Italy invades Malta (Automatic)
Attack on Malta (Automatic); French ships in port: BB & CL Destroyed, 2 CA Escaped to Marseilles, BB Dunkurque Captured by Italy

Results
Italy:
Destroys 1 x CL, 1 x BB
Captures 1 x BB

2 x French CA escaped to Mareilles


Impulse: 7
CW initiates combat in the Red Sea, using CL Coventry; Allied Roll: 2, Axis: 9
.....CW Destroys Italian CP
CW initiates combat in E. Med, using CL Dragon; Allied Roll; 5, Axis: 3; Both searches succeed (?), 3 & 4 Boxes included
.....Italy chooses Naval Air Combat, spends 2 Surprise Points to Increase Columns
.....Italy Damages French CA Montcalm, CW CL Capetown
.....Both sides choose to Fight On; Allied Roll: 7, Axis: 8; Both searches failed
.....France aborts CA to Beirut, CW aborts CL to Suez
CW chooses No Combat in W. Med

Results
Italy:
Damages 1 x French CA, 1 x CW CL

CW:
Destorys 1 x Convoy


Impulse: 9
.....Weather: 5
Italy chooses No Combat in the E. Med
Italy initiates combat in the W. Med, using CL Cadorna; Axis Roll: 4, Allies: 1; both succeed, 4 Box included
.....CW spends 2 Surprise Points to Decrease Columns
.....Italy Destroys CL Colombo, Damages CL Delhi
.....CW Destroys CL Montecuccoli
.....Both sides choose to Fight On; Axis Roll: 6, Allies: 2; Allies include all Boxes, spend 4 Surprise Points to Avoid Combat
.....CW aborts CL to Gibraltar

Results
Italy:
Destroys 1 x CL
Damages 1 x CL

CW:
Damages 1 x CL

S/O '39 Summary
Losses
Germany: None
Italy: 1 x CL, 1 x Convoy Destroyed; 4 x CL Damaged
France: 6 x CL, 3 x CA, 1 x BB Destroyd; 1 x CL, 2 x CA Damaged; 1 x BB Captured by Italy
CW: 1 x CL, 1 x Convoy, 1 x TRS Destroyed; 2 x CL Damaged, 3 x Convoy Captured by Germany

Axis Destroyed Allied Naval Units: 7 x CL, 3 x CA, 1 x BB, 1 x Convoy, 1 x TRS
Axis Damaged Allied Naval Units: 3 x CL, 2 x CA
Axis Captured Allied Naval Units: 1 x BB, 3 x Convoy

Allied Destroyed Axis Naval Units: 1 x CL, 1 x Convoy
Allied Damaged Axis Naval Units: 4 x CL
-----
In just the first turn alone, the Axis ratio of Naval Units removed from play was 22 to 6, including most of the French fleet due to the Surprise impulse and a lot of luck.

Should I bother working up summaries of the next 3 turns? Or does this help explain why the CW is in such trouble now?

I will work up summaries, but I won't give the full details of each battle. I'll simply do a summary for each turn, since this post is very long, indeed (unless you really want to see what happened). Once I've done that, I'll give you a full summary of all naval issues from S/O '39 to the current impulse. I think, that even though you can't see the specific die rolls for each "Damage Risk", that you can see the tendancy toward terrible luck for the Allies.

_____________________________

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it!
-Lazarus Long, RAH

(in reply to Red Prince)
Post #: 653
RE: MWiF Global War Hot-Seat (AAR) - 12/31/2011 4:52:33 PM   
Centuur


Posts: 8802
Joined: 6/3/2011
From: Hoorn (NED).
Status: offline 		You've committed the whole French fleet in the first impulse. That's normally not a very wise move. It is better to use a small fleet to trigger an Italian attack and have a slightely bigger one sitting in port to wait what happens. If the Italians DoW you, you than are faced with a first attack on the first fleet. Statitically in a surprise impulse, that fleet will take a beating and will have to abort (except when the Italians don't find you). Next impulse: move the reserve fleet into the area and start gunning without a surprise impulse giving the Italians all kind of nasty advantages.

Yes, there was bad luck occuring. However, you have to agree that that isn't the only thing which made life miserable for the French fleet in the first impulse of war with Italy. By the way: keep up the good work. I'm still loving how things are looking...

By the way, I don't want to give the impression I'm a little abusive toward you. That isn't my intention at all. If that happens, start shouting at me (but by PM please...).





_____________________________

Peter

(in reply to Red Prince)
Post #: 654
RE: MWiF Global War Hot-Seat (AAR) - 12/31/2011 5:24:02 PM   
Red Prince


Posts: 3686
Joined: 4/8/2011
From: Bangor, Maine, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Centuur

You've committed the whole French fleet in the first impulse. That's normally not a very wise move. It is better to use a small fleet to trigger an Italian attack and have a slightely bigger one sitting in port to wait what happens. If the Italians DoW you, you than are faced with a first attack on the first fleet. Statitically in a surprise impulse, that fleet will take a beating and will have to abort (except when the Italians don't find you). Next impulse: move the reserve fleet into the area and start gunning without a surprise impulse giving the Italians all kind of nasty advantages.

Yes, there was bad luck occuring. However, you have to agree that that isn't the only thing which made life miserable for the French fleet in the first impulse of war with Italy. By the way: keep up the good work. I'm still loving how things are looking...

By the way, I don't want to give the impression I'm a little abusive toward you. That isn't my intention at all. If that happens, start shouting at me (but by PM please...).

This was utterly and entirely my fault -- due to inexperience, but see the next post for further details.

_____________________________

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it!
-Lazarus Long, RAH

(in reply to Centuur)
Post #: 655
RE: MWiF Global War Hot-Seat (AAR) - 12/31/2011 5:24:27 PM   
Red Prince


Posts: 3686
Joined: 4/8/2011
From: Bangor, Maine, USA
Status: offline 		In the following summaries, I will add one important factor: the number of times the Allies attempted to initiate combat, but failed to do so -- which is another indicator of bad luck.

N/D '39 Summary
Failed combat initiations: 2

Losses
Germany: None
Italy: None
France: 1 x CA, 1 x BB Destroyed; 1 x CA Damaged; 1 x CA, 1 x BB Captured by Italy
CW: 1 x CL Damaged, 2 x CL Aborted

Axis Destroyed Allied Naval Units: 1 x CA, 1 x BB
Axis Damaged Allied Naval Units: 1 x CL, 1 x CA
Axis Captured Allied Naval Units: 1 x CA, 1 x BB

Allied Destroyed Axis Naval Units: None
Allied Damaged Axis Naval Units: None
-----
This was a semi-short turn, and the damage done to the fleets in the first turn had to be corrected. Therefore, in the 3 Allied impulses, there were few opportnites to make attacks that made sense.

The N/D '39 ratio of Naval Units removed from play was again in favor of the Axis, 6 to 0 . . . cumulative totals: 28 to 6.
-----
J/F '40 Summary
Failed combat initiations: 0
.....Hoever, there was essentially 1 failed initiation:
CW initiates combat in North Sea, using CA Hawkins; CW sends FTR (Hurricane) to the 1 Box; Germany sends NAV to the 2 Box; Allied Roll: 10, Axis: 2
.....Germany selects the 3 Box only, spends 4 Surprise Points to Avoid Combat

Losses
Germany: 2 x CL Damaged
Italy: None
France: None
CW: 1 x CL Destroyed; 3 x CL Aborted

Axis Destroyed Allied Naval Units: 1 x CL
Axis Damaged Allied Naval Units: None
Axis Captured Allied Naval Units: None

Allied Destroyed Axis Naval Units: None
Allied Damaged Axis Naval Units: 2 x CL
-----
This was a 5 impulse turn, so very little happened at sea.

The J/F '40 ratio of Naval Units removed from play favored the Allies, 2 to 1 . . . cumulative totals: 29 to 7.
-----
M/A '40 Summary
Failed combat initiations: 5

Losses
Germany: 1 x FTR-2 Destroyed; 1 x CA Damaged; 1 x CA Aborted
Italy: 1 x CL, 2 x Convoy Destroyed; 4 x CA Aborted
France: None
CW: 1 x CL, 1 x Convoy, 1 x TRS (w/GARR), 1 x CV (w/CVP) Destroyed; 1 x CL, 1 x CA Damaged; 1 x CL, 1 x BB, 1 x Convoy, 2 x TRS Aborted

Axis Destroyed Allied Naval Units: 1 x CL, 1 x Convoy, 1 x TRS, 1 x CV
Axis Destroyed Allied Land/Air Units: 1 x GARR, 1 x CVP
Axis Damaged Allied Naval Units: 1 x CL, 1 x CA

Allied Destroyed Axis Naval Units: 1 x CL, 2 x Convoy
Allied Destroyed Axis Land/Air Units: 1 x FTR-2
Allied Damaged Axis Naval Units: 1 x CA
-----
This turn was 8 impulses long. I've started including Abort results in this because (especially the Italian units) many of these were failed attempts to Damage.

The M/A '40 ratio of Naval Units removed from play favored the Axis, 6 to 4 . . . cumulative totals: 35 to 11. Land/Air Units eliminated also favored the Axis, 2 to 1.
-----
M/J '40 Summary -- through Impulse #7
Failed combat initiations: 0
.....Hoever, there was essentially 1 failed initiation:
CW initiates combat in E. Med, using CL Dragon; Allied Roll: 7, Axis: 3;
.....Italy spends 4 Surprise Points to Avoid Combat

Losses
Germany: None
Italy: 1 x CL Destroyed; 2 x CA Damaged; 3 x CA Aborted
France: 1 x CA, 1 x NAV Destroyed; 1 x CA Damaged
CW: 5 x CL Destroyed; 2 x CL, 1 x CA Damaged; 1 x CL, 4 x CA Aborted

Axis Destroyed Allied Naval Units: 5 x CL, 1 x CA
Axis Destroyed Allied Land/Air Units: 1 x NAV
Axis Damaged Allied Naval Units: 2 x CL, 2 x CA

Allied Destroyed Axis Naval Units: 1 x CL
Allied DamagedAxis Naval Units: 2 x CA
-----
Through the first 7 impulses of M/J '40, the ratio of Naval Units removed from play favored the Axis, 10 to 3 . . . cumulative totals 45 to 14. Land/Air Units eliminated also favored the Axis, 1 to 0 . . . cumulative totals: 3 to 1.

Something which is difficult to show, unless I were to include all of my notes, is that the CW has had few sustainable targets. When targets are available, they get terrible rolls. Also, when Italy feels it cannot sustain any more damage, it Aborts from Combat and only comes back out to sea when it can do serious harm to the enemy fleets. How is the CW supposed to attack ships that aren't there?
-----
Cumulative totals for S/O '39 through Impulse #7 of M/J '40
Failed CW combat initiations (including Avoided Combats): 9

Losses
Germany: 1 x FTR-2 Destroyed; 2 x CL, 1 x CA Damaged
Italy: 3 x CL, 3 x Convoy Destroyed; 4 x CL, 2 x CA Damaged
France: 6 x CL, 4 x CA, 2 x BB, 1 x NAV Destroyed; 1 x CL, 4 x CA Damaged; 1 x CA, 2 x BB Captured (It)
CW: 8 x CL, 2 x Convoy, 2 x TRS, 1 x CV, 1 x GARR, 1 x CVP Destroyed; 6 x CL, 2 x CA Damaged; 3 x Convoy Captured (Ge)

Axis Destroyed Allied Naval Units: 14 x CL, 4 x CA, 2 x BB, 2 x Convoy, 2 x TRS, 1 x CV (25 units)
Axis Destroyed Allied Land/Air Units: 1 x GARR, 1 x NAV, 1 x CVP (3 units)
Axis Damaged Allied Naval Units: 7 x CL, 6 x CA (13 units)
Axis Captured Allied Naval Units: 1 x CA, 2 x BB, 3 x Convoy (6 units)

Allied Destroyed Axis Naval Units: 3 x CL, 3 x Convoy (6 units)
Allied Destroyed Axis Land/Air Units: 1 x FTR-2 (1 unit)
Allied Damaged Axis Naval Units: 6 x CL, 3 x CA (9 units)
-----
I seem to have miscounted something somewhere, because the above shows a 44 to 15 ratio instead of 45 to 14 in the Axis favor. I'm not going to bother trying to figure out which is correct. In the naval battles of this game, the Axis has essentially eliminated the enemy at a 3:1 pace. Even the worst player in the world can't accomplish that without a lot of bad luck on one side and good luck on the other. I don't care how enormous the CW fleet is to begin with. If you lose ships at this rate over the course of the first year -- for whatever reason -- there just isn't enough left over to do everything I'm being asked to do with the CW.

I hope this summary demonstrates that the poor initial setup, a few risky moves, and a huge amount of luck have all conspired against the Royal Navy. And, hopefully, you'll begin to forgive me for my "bad play".

-Aaron



< Message edited by Red Prince -- 12/31/2011 5:25:23 PM >

_____________________________

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it!
-Lazarus Long, RAH

(in reply to Red Prince)
Post #: 656
RE: MWiF Global War Hot-Seat (AAR) - 12/31/2011 10:35:20 PM   
Klydon


Posts: 2251
Joined: 11/28/2010
Status: offline 		Even if you toss out the 22 to 6 for the surprise turn, it is still 23 to 8 or so, which is extremely painful. I saw a lot of "avoid combat" on the part of the Axis when it suited them.

Also painful is the amount of CW speed that has been removed in terms of CL's. I would think that makes it harder to respond/intercept and reduces the flexibility the RN has.

(in reply to Red Prince)
Post #: 657
RE: MWiF Global War Hot-Seat (AAR) - 1/1/2012 5:18:58 AM   
Red Prince


Posts: 3686
Joined: 4/8/2011
From: Bangor, Maine, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Klydon

Even if you toss out the 22 to 6 for the surprise turn, it is still 23 to 8 or so, which is extremely painful. I saw a lot of "avoid combat" on the part of the Axis when it suited them.

Also painful is the amount of CW speed that has been removed in terms of CL's. I would think that makes it harder to respond/intercept and reduces the flexibility the RN has.

I think this is very true. Germany has Kiel (and now Brest) to work from. Italy has Malta. The CW has to work around the entire world from less convenient locations.

Oh, and, by the way:

Happy New Year!

_____________________________

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it!
-Lazarus Long, RAH

(in reply to Klydon)
Post #: 658
RE: MWiF Global War Hot-Seat (AAR) - 1/1/2012 3:25:48 PM   
Red Prince


Posts: 3686
Joined: 4/8/2011
From: Bangor, Maine, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Klydon

Even if you toss out the 22 to 6 for the surprise turn, it is still 23 to 8 or so, which is extremely painful. I saw a lot of "avoid combat" on the part of the Axis when it suited them.

Also painful is the amount of CW speed that has been removed in terms of CL's. I would think that makes it harder to respond/intercept and reduces the flexibility the RN has.

I know I already quoted this, but it brings up a related question:

Last game I was derided (correctly) for building too many CW naval units and not building enough land and air units to start the game. This game I've tried to limit that somewhat, building more land and air units than before, and averaging 1-2 naval units each turn.

With the enormous losses suffered by the CW and French to this point, and with the USA not yet able to Repair Western Allied Units (not to mention the fact that it has not yet chosen the Option: Gift of Destroyers to the CW), at what point do I either choose these options -- which may result in a delayed US Entry -- or begin rebuilding a higher percentage of Naval Units for the CW?

_____________________________

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it!
-Lazarus Long, RAH

(in reply to Klydon)
Post #: 659
RE: MWiF Global War Hot-Seat (AAR) - 1/1/2012 4:15:10 PM   
Klydon


Posts: 2251
Joined: 11/28/2010
Status: offline 		I think you would get a very helpful benefit from repairs. The gift of the destroyers is a one time shot and doesn't really alter your economic situation while repairing would free up CW build points to work on air and land items (or whatever you wanted; it would effectively raise the CW economic value as long as there are ships to be repaired).

Given the strategy the Axis is pursuing, the CW has issues and needs some help now.

(in reply to Red Prince)
Post #: 660
Page:   <<   < prev  20 21 [22] 23 24   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> After Action Report >> RE: MWiF Global War Hot-Seat (AAR) Page: <<   < prev  20 21 [22] 23 24   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

0.734