RE: MWiF Global War Hot-Seat (AAR)

RE: MWiF Global War Hot-Seat (AAR) (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> After Action Report

Message

composer99 -> RE: MWiF Global War Hot-Seat (AAR) (11/15/2011 5:54:51 PM)
Given Tehran is no longer in mountains the land units present should be satisfactory. To wrap things up easily USSR should have 4-5 bombers, 2-3 to ground strike and the rest to ground support (given you can't reach Tehran on the surprise impulse). Ideally you should get the best possible odds (or close to) on your attack (I don't recall what these are on 1d10 crt as I've never used it). IMO losing anything more than the cav div on this attack is a travesty (unless bad weather hits)

Orm -> RE: MWiF Global War Hot-Seat (AAR) (11/15/2011 6:00:08 PM)
As things stand I would DOW Perisa ASAP. If Japan decides to DOW USSR then so be it. Less presure on China and USSR can build up a attack force during the winter to have a Japanese campaign during the 1940 summer. That, at least, provides some fun for the Soviet player. Edit: I find that many say that they will go to war with USSR as Japan in order to get the Persian oil. However, when it is actually time to declare war many do back down. Japan has many things to consider before going to war with USSR and it is in the end not always the Persian oil that has the highest priority.

paulderynck -> RE: MWiF Global War Hot-Seat (AAR) (11/15/2011 6:08:20 PM)
I think it's interesting how using the European map scale world-wide is going to change some of the accepted strategies from the board game. In WiFFE, you are extremely unlikely to see Zhukov going into Persia (although he may stay close by for re-organization purposes). In the board game, moving him into the first mountain hex and flipping him is a complete waste. Here in MWIF he can be giving a +2.5 for an attack on Tehran in third Allied impulse. Of course Tehran is now a clear hex so it will be much easier to get guaranteed odds.

Red Prince -> RE: MWiF Global War Hot-Seat (AAR) (11/15/2011 6:10:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: paulderynck I think it's interesting how using the European map scale world-wide is going to change some of the accepted strategies from the board game. In WiFFE, you are extremely unlikely to see Zhukov going into Persia (although he may stay close by for re-organization purposes). In the board game, moving him into the first mountain hex and flipping him is a complete waste. Here in MWIF he can be giving a +2.5 for an attack on Tehran in third Allied impulse. Of course Tehran is now a clear hex so it will be much easier to get guaranteed odds. So I take it you are now in favor of a 2nd Allied impulse DOW on Persia?

paulderynck -> RE: MWiF Global War Hot-Seat (AAR) (11/15/2011 6:41:31 PM)
No. Personally I'd call it off, given the US Entry situation. A lot of Russian players like to take Persia but only one third of the oil is accessible by rail. So 2 oil per turn can be used for re-org which is a surfeit for Russia until they are active, but not good for much else but building tank farms. It will take longer to store a maximum of 4 and Bushehr is even more vulnerable to attack in MWiF versus WiFFE. One of the oil can only be transported by sea (it has no port or RR). You can't lend it to the CW and they can't transport it for you until you are active, and if you conquer Persia, you deny the one per turn the CW gets. Two thirds of the oil is useless until you are at war. You have maybe a 58% chance of three clear impulses in SepOct (although bad weather is not as deadly as with the WiFFE map scale as you can still move your 4-moving INF). Hopefully you have a CP in the Caspian to keep your units in supply. The extra oil has no use until you are at war. Personally I'd wait for MayJun or JulAug 40 and then only do it if the Japanese appear unable to react. [image]local://upfiles/24497/2FFB6A4E3FE5444DB3D19CF908DF51BA.jpg[/image]

Centuur -> RE: MWiF Global War Hot-Seat (AAR) (11/15/2011 7:19:49 PM)
If I'm looking at that map now, I don't like attacking Persia at all in the first turn as the USSR. I really agree with Paul that things have changed a lot here, with the unified map. You're getting one oil and free reorganisation of the small number of oil dependent units you will use while not active. The Japanese is likely to get the Marines and Yamamoto on Bandar Shapur and Bushehr in the return to base phase at turns end. It is only one hex from the third oil field, while the USSR still have to move through the mountains to get there. Only a rail move by Zhukov might give you the third oil field, if you're going first in next turn. A huge gamble. Personally, I would at least wait until 1940. The benefits are in doubt, until Yamamoto and his marines are in action somewhere on the map, and not on there transports. Than, comrades, it's time to assist our comrades in Teheran by removing the Shah, who is in the pay of those capitalist monsters in London, Paris and Washington... The Japanese don't want to go to war with the Russian bear if there isn't any oil to benefit from...

Orm -> RE: MWiF Global War Hot-Seat (AAR) (11/15/2011 8:38:11 PM)
With so aggressive Axis play I think it would be nice with some aggression from the Allies. Since CW is in no position to do so I suggest USSR show some aggression. Besides, I dislike having Zhukov sitting in a swamp doing nothing for about 5 turns or so. Sometimes you can be to passive and I feel this might be one of those times. Forward Ho!

brian brian -> RE: MWiF Global War Hot-Seat (AAR) (11/15/2011 9:05:03 PM)
A lesson you learn playing World in Flames is that just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should do something. I was pretty grateful to have WiF and Cyberboard around once while I had to recuperate from an ear infection through a week of pure solitude a few years ago. I would sleep, take anti-biotics, play WiF, and go back to sleep.

Klydon -> RE: MWiF Global War Hot-Seat (AAR) (11/15/2011 9:25:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: brian brian A lesson you learn playing World in Flames is that just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should do something. I agree with this approach not only for this game, but as a basic strategy point. You can often accomplish far more with the threat to be able to do something than the actual act itself.

warspite1 -> RE: MWiF Global War Hot-Seat (AAR) (11/15/2011 9:39:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Klydon quote: ORIGINAL: brian brian A lesson you learn playing World in Flames is that just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should do something. I agree with this approach not only for this game, but as a basic strategy point. You can often accomplish far more with the threat to be able to do something than the actual act itself. Warspite1 +1 The German fleet being a perfect example. All the while they haven't moved the Royal Navy can't relax. So many times I felt the need to be doing something with my precious German naval units and ended up losing ships rashly; immediately making life easier for my grateful opponent.

Orm -> RE: MWiF Global War Hot-Seat (AAR) (11/15/2011 9:57:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Klydon quote: ORIGINAL: brian brian A lesson you learn playing World in Flames is that just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should do something. I agree with this approach not only for this game, but as a basic strategy point. You can often accomplish far more with the threat to be able to do something than the actual act itself. I agree with this. But at the moment I feel it is that there is no argument that the Axis are very aggressive but at the same time there are alot of objections if the Allies should show some aggression. Even worse is that so few argue that let Japan play his declaration of war and send his army to Persia instead of China. I would call his bluff. And if it was no bluff I would relish to the fact that I get Japan to DOW USSR during 1939. I do not get why USSR should fear this. I really do not get it. I do get that it can be hard to dislodge the units Japan may have in Persia but so what? USSR subs force Japan to escort their convoys and hence use up more oil. Maybe even some strategic bombing. I say that this makes for a fun game for USSR. Allies who just play passive and wait for US to save them can at times be wise but often makes boring games for the Allies.

Red Prince -> RE: MWiF Global War Hot-Seat (AAR) (11/15/2011 11:08:25 PM)
I'm just going to re-introduce to this discussion that I fully intend to let Italy align Iraq as early as can be done. If the USSR waits too long, Persia might become Italian, too.

Centuur -> RE: MWiF Global War Hot-Seat (AAR) (11/16/2011 12:15:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Red Prince I'm just going to re-introduce to this discussion that I fully intend to let Italy align Iraq as early as can be done. If the USSR waits too long, Persia might become Italian, too. I agree, however, when are the Italians able to align Iraq? Not in 1939, I believe. So you can wait until 1940 with you're DOW against Persia. And everyone who says that the USSR should DOW Persia in first turn of the game hasn't seen the effect of no gearing limits in place at production. I did once as the USSR and I'm never going to do so again. I got into a war with the Japanese and wasn't exactly happy with the number of land units he did build in the first turn. I got in a real attrittion warfare in Siberia losing units and a 1941 Barbarossa finished me off. I simply was to greedy in the first turn, and that isn't going to happen to me ever again.

Red Prince -> RE: MWiF Global War Hot-Seat (AAR) (11/16/2011 12:25:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Centuur quote: ORIGINAL: Red Prince I'm just going to re-introduce to this discussion that I fully intend to let Italy align Iraq as early as can be done. If the USSR waits too long, Persia might become Italian, too. I agree, however, when are the Italians able to align Iraq? Not in 1939, I believe. So you can wait until 1940 with you're DOW against Persia. And everyone who says that the USSR should DOW Persia in first turn of the game hasn't seen the effect of no gearing limits in place at production. I did once as the USSR and I'm never going to do so again. I got into a war with the Japanese and wasn't exactly happy with the number of land units he did build in the first turn. I got in a real attrittion warfare in Siberia losing units and a 1941 Barbarossa finished me off. I simply was to greedy in the first turn, and that isn't going to happen to me ever again. Not sure I understand what you mean by this. Remember also that because of the Compulsory Peace thing, I'm not going to DOW the USSR with Japan . . . . but you may be right about Italy not getting there until '40 . . . wish I had my old notes so I could figure out exactly when they did it.

Red Prince -> RE: MWiF Global War Hot-Seat (AAR) (11/16/2011 12:27:34 PM)
Found it in the other thread: quote: J/F '40 Impulse 3: Germany denies the claims by Hungary and Bulgaria Germany DOW Hungary (France); USE-8 (no chit) Germany aligns Finland; USE-6 (no chit) Impulse 7: Rumania aligns with Germany as a Full Ally; USE-3 (+1 chit, 194) - 1 (1, 2, 3, 4, 4) Japan occupies Nanning; USE-2 (+1 chit, 355) - 4 (1, 1, 4, 4, 4) Impulse 12: Italy aligns Iraq; USE-10 (no chit) So, you are right, it wasn't until the beginning of 1940.

Red Prince -> RE: MWiF Global War Hot-Seat (AAR) (11/16/2011 2:24:34 PM)
I've decided to go ahead and do it, for one perfectly good/pointless reason: The CW has no CP in the Persian Gulf, and can't spare any to get there to take advantage of the Persian Oil it is allowed in a Trade Agreement. Therefore, the USSR is not hurting its ally by "stealing" its Oil, but rather has the opportunity to make use of that Oil, when nobody else can. I suppose the CW could rail it to Egypt, but that is not strongly defended territory at the moment, so may be unsafe. Besides, my (possibly unreliable) spies in the Communist Chinese military have informed me that Japan has no interest in the Persian Oil at this time. ----- Reading between the lines: I guess I'm doing this because I want to do it. The Japanese aren't yet in a position to really threaten Communist China, so the land moves can be used here, now, and might not be available later. ----- Sorry to disregard your advice, which is perfectly legitimate, fellows, but chalk it up to stupidity (unless it works out brilliantly). -Aaron

Centuur -> RE: MWiF Global War Hot-Seat (AAR) (11/16/2011 2:28:47 PM)
Gearing limits are limits on what you units you can produce. For example: if you've build one infantry type of unit this turn, you can build a max. of two next turn. Now, at start of the game, this limits aren't there. So the everyone can build whatever number of units he likes in the first production phase.

Red Prince -> RE: MWiF Global War Hot-Seat (AAR) (11/16/2011 2:51:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Centuur Gearing limits are limits on what you units you can produce. For example: if you've build one infantry type of unit this turn, you can build a max. of two next turn. Now, at start of the game, this limits aren't there. So the everyone can build whatever number of units he likes in the first production phase. I understand this, I just don't understand who the USSR should be fearing. I assume you mean Japan being able to build out an army to conquer Siberia?

Extraneous -> RE: MWiF Global War Hot-Seat (AAR) (11/16/2011 3:21:27 PM)
Red Prince Post #: 41 I�m trying to follow your CW convoy lines. Factories 1x Melbourne, Australia 1x Canberra, Australia 1x Montreal, Canada 1x Toronto, Canada 1x Calcutta, India 1x Bombay, India 1x Deli, India 1x Belfast, UK 2x Birmingham, UK 1x Coventry, UK 2x Glasgow, UK 1x Hull, UK 1x Leeds, UK 1x Liverpool, UK 3x London, UK 2x Manchester, UK 1x Newcastle, UK 1x Sheffield, UK 1x Southampton, UK Oil 2x Oil from NEI trade agreement 3x Oil from Venezuela trade agreement 1x Persia 1x Burma 1x Canada 1x Port of Spain, Trinidad Resources 1x Newcastle, Australia 2x Australia 5x Canada 1x Georgetown, British Guyana 1x Cyprus 4x India 2x Malaya 1x N'dola, North Rhodesia 2x South Africa 1x Cardiff, Great Britain 1x Coventry, Great Britain Convoy Lines? Australia - Rail to port - Coral Sea - New Zealand Coast - Polynesia - Clarion - West Coast � Victoria, Canada - Rail to Factory Australia - Rail to port - Coral Sea - New Zealand Coast - South Pacific - Austral - Capricorn - Gulf of Panama - Caribbean - East Coast - East Coast - North Atlantic - Bay of Biscay � English Port - Rail to Factory (For Food in Flames) 3x Oil from Venezuela trade agreement - Caribbean - ? 4x Resources from Canada - ?

Red Prince -> RE: MWiF Global War Hot-Seat (AAR) (11/16/2011 3:26:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Extraneous Red Prince Post #: 41 I�m trying to follow your CW convoy lines. Factories 1x Melbourne, Australia 1x Canberra, Australia 1x Montreal, Canada 1x Toronto, Canada 1x Calcutta, India 1x Bombay, India 1x Deli, India 1x Belfast, UK 2x Birmingham, UK 1x Coventry, UK 2x Glasgow, UK 1x Hull, UK 1x Leeds, UK 1x Liverpool, UK 3x London, UK 2x Manchester, UK 1x Newcastle, UK 1x Sheffield, UK 1x Southampton, UK Oil 2x Oil from NEI trade agreement 3x Oil from Venezuela trade agreement 1x Persia 1x Burma 1x Canada 1x Port of Spain, Trinidad Resources 1x Newcastle, Australia 2x Australia 5x Canada 1x Georgetown, British Guyana 1x Cyprus 4x India 2x Malaya 1x N'dola, North Rhodesia 2x South Africa 1x Cardiff, Great Britain 1x Coventry, Great Britain � Convoy Lines? Australia - Rail to port - Coral Sea - New Zealand Coast - Polynesia - Clarion - West Coast � Victoria, Canada - Rail to Factory Australia - Rail to port - Coral Sea - New Zealand Coast - South Pacific - Austral - Capricorn - Gulf of Panama - Caribbean - East Coast - East Coast - North Atlantic - Bay of Biscay � English Port - Rail to Factory (For Food in Flames) 3x Oil from Venezuela trade agreement - Caribbean - ? 4x Resources from Canada - ? Please see Post #48 for the answer to all of these questions. I'm still too sick to try to follow this right now, and I think I answered this all in that post. If I missed something, I'll try to explain it later. Or, maybe I just missed something . . . I make mistakes now and then.

Extraneous -> RE: MWiF Global War Hot-Seat (AAR) (11/16/2011 3:43:27 PM)
Never mind just saw the "Convoys" part. Transporting resources by rail The move can only pass through: hexes you control; hexes in neutral minor countries; and hexes controlled by another major power, but only if it allows you (USA aways allows their side).

Joseignacio -> RE: MWiF Global War Hot-Seat (AAR) (11/16/2011 4:03:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Red Prince This is what happened to Malta due to that massive mistake I made in forgetting about a known bug. Note the Italian INF Division in position to invade. He was intended to invade either Greece or Syria . . . or even Egypt . . . but being forced to move the 5-4 INF from Malta to Bombay so that I could abort the French navy . . . Anyway, the CW can't reinforce Malta, so it is a delicious target. This may be the primary reason a DOW is essential. [image]local://upfiles/38062/0056BB95FF4044738146473425570BE0.jpg[/image] Why? The non-cooperation rule applies to ships too? Then we made a wrong move in our wifcon game.

Red Prince -> RE: MWiF Global War Hot-Seat (AAR) (11/16/2011 4:06:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Joseignacio quote: ORIGINAL: Red Prince This is what happened to Malta due to that massive mistake I made in forgetting about a known bug. Note the Italian INF Division in position to invade. He was intended to invade either Greece or Syria . . . or even Egypt . . . but being forced to move the 5-4 INF from Malta to Bombay so that I could abort the French navy . . . Anyway, the CW can't reinforce Malta, so it is a delicious target. This may be the primary reason a DOW is essential. [image]local://upfiles/38062/0056BB95FF4044738146473425570BE0.jpg[/image] Why? The non-cooperation rule applies to ships too? Then we made a wrong move in our wifcon game. Apparently (to my understanding), it does. Sorry, and I hope it didn't change the outcome draatically in your game.

Joseignacio -> RE: MWiF Global War Hot-Seat (AAR) (11/16/2011 4:36:34 PM)
No, in fact we moved the french cruisers in what seems to be now an illegal move, to a CW port in Africa, to rebase them to Asia. Usually I send them to French possesions in Africa and that's all. The outcome was that we couldn't rebase them fast enough and they were close to Madagascar (which became FF) but also to "Other territories in the Asian map" or whatever the name is, which became Vichy and as a consequence I lost "my" 4 best cruisers, which became Vichy (all that could get in a minor port), which shouldn't have happened otherwise.

Red Prince -> RE: MWiF Global War Hot-Seat (AAR) (11/16/2011 4:41:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Joseignacio No, in fact we moved the french cruisers in what seems to be now an illegal move, to a CW port in Africa, to rebase them to Asia. Usually I send them to French possesions in Africa and that's all. The outcome was that we couldn't rebase them fast enough and they were close to Madagascar (which became FF) but also to "Other territories in the Asian map" or whatever the name is, which became Vichy and as a consequence I lost "my" 4 best cruisers, which became Vichy (all that could get in a minor port), which shouldn't have happened otherwise. If the CW port in Africa was not occupied by a CW unit, then the move was legal . . . but if it was . . . . I think it was an illegal move. A lot of rules to keep track of, especially when you are under the gun like you were at the convention. Just think about it, I've spent 3 or 4 hours now, just considering how best to "fix" the problems I created with the CW fleet at setup. No way could you do that at the convention. [:)]

brian brian -> RE: MWiF Global War Hot-Seat (AAR) (11/16/2011 6:41:22 PM)
If I was Churchill and my Foreign Minister or First Sea Lord or Chief of the Imperial General Staff said to me that we might as well sign off on the Russians going into Persia (and thus handing the good parts off to the Japanese) because the Italians are just going to take Iraq anyway, well, that person would be sacked on the spot. For the Italians to align Iraq (and they already blew their chance for surprise impulse landings in Syria), they have to go through the Royal Navy. The Royal Navy is a powerful instrument of war. Use it. Playing the CW like a turtle curled up into a ball while you wait for Uncle Sam is just not the way to do it, nor is the way the real English ever ran a military campaign for that matter. The Allies being afraid of casualties is probably the number two way for the Allies to lose the game. (No BEF? Really.) The number one way for the Allies to lose the game is probably for the Russians to get deeply entangled in Manchuria in 1940, before knowing whether the Euro-Axis can or might launch a full-on Barbarossa in 1941. I have seen that over and over again...Uncle Joe gets bored and ends up throwing the whole game. My thoughts on that are in the Russian AI thread, we have talked that to death over the years.

Red Prince -> RE: MWiF Global War Hot-Seat (AAR) (11/16/2011 6:50:24 PM)
Just a gentle reminder that I am trying to reproduce conditions from the game that was lost with my old computer . . . not trying to play the perfect game from the start.

Centuur -> RE: MWiF Global War Hot-Seat (AAR) (11/16/2011 7:08:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Red Prince quote: ORIGINAL: Centuur Gearing limits are limits on what you units you can produce. For example: if you've build one infantry type of unit this turn, you can build a max. of two next turn. Now, at start of the game, this limits aren't there. So the everyone can build whatever number of units he likes in the first production phase. I understand this, I just don't understand who the USSR should be fearing. I assume you mean Japan being able to build out an army to conquer Siberia? No, I mean getting into a war of attrittion with the Japanese, losing a lot of units early in the war. The USSR should take Persia, but not before the Japanese has committed himself by his build program. Every USSR corps tied up in a war with Japan cannot be used against the Germans. If enough corps are lost or isolated during this war, things might get easier for the Euroaxis to crush the USSR in a Barbarossa 1941...

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWiF Global War Hot-Seat (AAR) (11/16/2011 7:24:59 PM)
To clarify: The danger of immediately DOW'ing Persia is that the Japanese can then DOW the USSR while some of the best of the very few units the USSR has are far away in Persia. Even if the USSR can counter the first attacks, the Japanese will be able to make good progress in killing and tying up Soviet units. And then the Germans have a much easier time of it in 1941. Waiting a turn enables the USSR to see what the Japanese build program is. If it is light on infantry units, then there is less danger from a Japanese attack in the far east. Myself, I always build a lot of land units for the Japanese at the start of the war. The early year air units have awful numbers on them and the most important naval units (AMPH and TRS) can wait several turns. The only real loss is that the new carriers may get started late.

Orm -> RE: MWiF Global War Hot-Seat (AAR) (11/16/2011 7:55:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets To clarify: The danger of immediately DOW'ing Persia is that the Japanese can then DOW the USSR while some of the best of the very few units the USSR has are far away in Persia. Even if the USSR can counter the first attacks, the Japanese will be able to make good progress in killing and tying up Soviet units. And then the Germans have a much easier time of it in 1941. Waiting a turn enables the USSR to see what the Japanese build program is. If it is light on infantry units, then there is less danger from a Japanese attack in the far east. Myself, I always build a lot of land units for the Japanese at the start of the war. The early year air units have awful numbers on them and the most important naval units (AMPH and TRS) can wait several turns. The only real loss is that the new carriers may get started late. I think most Japanese players build a lot of land units the first turn, exactly as Steve does, so usually USSR gets no additional clue from this. That is in my humble opinion anyway.

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.9689941