RE: Mistakes...

RE: Mistakes... (Full Version)

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

Message

composer99 -> RE: Mistakes... (9/12/2013 5:29:53 PM)
On topic: System mastery is an important component of player skill in (M)WiF as in any game. Learning the system is IMO best done in digestible chunks. As such, I would agree with the scenario booklet and with other veteran players posting here: - Barbarossa is a good starting point: you learn the land/air game, the turn/impulse system, production, and even a little politics (such as it is in (M)WiF). - Guadalcanal is an important next step: you learn the naval/air game, combined arms operations, and how to work with what you have (important for naval stuff that takes 2 years to build and 2 die rolls to sink). I would heartily recommend (and endorse any others' recommendations) to understand both scenarios relatively well before proceeding with the main game. ===== Off topic: It transpires that, as a mathematical concept, negative probability is "a thing" (as the kids say these days), mostly used in financial modelling and quantum mechanics (both IMO apropos). It's fair to say I don't see it having any particular relevance to MWiF, but it is out there.

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Mistakes... (9/12/2013 6:33:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Easo79 quote: ORIGINAL: Froonp Is that forum now devoted to linguistics ? [:D] mmm...you are right...I tend to disgress horribly....[&:] Err..back to the topic. I have a very important question. The scenario Booklet says that for a first-time player the ideal scenario is Barbarrossa, and then Guadalcanal. Do most of you, "oh!, expert WiF players" agree with that assertion? Intuitively it would seem that Guadalcanal was a much smaller battle (and therefore easier) than Barbarrossa, that's why I am asking this. But perhaps the intricacies of the naval system more than compensates for this? But what if the program knows the rules...? Naval operations in WIF are quite different from other systems modeling naval operations and combat in WW II. ADG's design for WIF takes some getting used to. Some examples: Port attacks take place before naval movement! This means that you have to devote an impulse (partial turn) to move the Japanese fleet into position next to Hawaii, and then wait for the following impulse to launch the port attack on Pearl Harbor. Naval units moving through a sea area can be intercepted by enemy naval units already present in the sea area and forced to engage in combat - in the middle of the naval movement phase. All naval combat depends on successful search rolls by one or both sides. Gigantic fleets can occupy the same sea area and yet no combat takes place during the impulse, or possibly even during the full 2 month game turn. Surprise is a major factor in the outcome of all naval combat. Small naval forces can do damage to forces 2+ times their size if the die rolls are such that the smaller force achieves surprise. You always have to be prepared to lose ships at sea in combat, regardless of how majestic your fleet appears before engaging in combat. The power of air units in naval combat in WIF is enormous. This is historically accurate, and a fact that Churchill was slow to learn - and reluctant to accept. In his 6 volume set on WW II he keeps going on and on about battleships. In the later volumes of the set he adds carriers to his lists of important naval forces. Then there are invasion, creating, maintaining, and protecting convoy pipelines. In general, the war between the US and Japan is 95% naval operations. Guadalcanal lets a new player learn how the WIF system works.

Extraneous -> RE: Mistakes... (9/12/2013 8:42:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Neilster quote: As far as I have found the United States was the only country to practice an amphibious assault prior to World War 2. Ever heard of Gallipoli? And of course there are all the others from ancient times onwards...the Persians at Marathon in 490 BC etc... Neilster [:D] Gallipoli and Marathon were PRACTICE? [:D] Amphibious warfare (wikipedia) The term amphibious first emerged in the USA during the 1930s after design of the Landing Vehicle Tracked where the first prototypes were named Alligator and Crocodile, though neither species are amphibian. Amphibious warfare includes operations defined by their type, purpose, scale and means of execution. In the British Empire at the time these were called combined operations which were defined as "...operations where naval, military or air forces in any combination are co-operating with each other, working independently under their respective commanders, but with a common strategic object." All armed forces that employ troops with special training and equipment for conducting landings from naval vessels to shore agree to this definition.

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Mistakes... (9/12/2013 9:22:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Extraneous quote: ORIGINAL: Neilster quote: As far as I have found the United States was the only country to practice an amphibious assault prior to World War 2. Ever heard of Gallipoli? And of course there are all the others from ancient times onwards...the Persians at Marathon in 490 BC etc... Neilster [:D] Gallipoli and Marathon were PRACTICE? [:D] Amphibious warfare (wikipedia) The term amphibious first emerged in the USA during the 1930s after design of the Landing Vehicle Tracked where the first prototypes were named Alligator and Crocodile, though neither species are amphibian. Amphibious warfare includes operations defined by their type, purpose, scale and means of execution. In the British Empire at the time these were called combined operations which were defined as "...operations where naval, military or air forces in any combination are co-operating with each other, working independently under their respective commanders, but with a common strategic object." All armed forces that employ troops with special training and equipment for conducting landings from naval vessels to shore agree to this definition. Not for those who were there. It probably isn't overstating the case to say that all wars in the Mediterranean in ancient times involved some invasions from ship to shore. I've just finished reading a book on ancient civilizations and their operations in the Med sure had a lot of fighting over control of islands.

Neilster -> RE: Mistakes... (9/13/2013 5:21:50 AM)
The term might have been coined later but amphibious invasions had been occurring for thousands of years. Neilster

Extraneous -> RE: Mistakes... (9/13/2013 5:46:41 AM)
quote: Merriam-Websters online dictionary Amphibious 1: combining two characteristics 2 a: relating to or adapted for both land and water <amphibious vehicles> b: executed by coordinated action of land, sea, and air forces organized for invasion <an amphibious landing>; also : trained or organized for such action <amphibious forces> 3: able to live both on land and in water <amphibious plants> I have given you definitions of Amphibious not invasions and not landings. I have shown you that Amphibious was not used as a military term prior to 1930. I will make my statement even more clear: Between 1930 and the start of World War 2. For the start of World War 2 you may use either the start of Second Sino-Japanese War (July 7, 1937) or the German invasion of Poland (September 1, 1939). No country other than the United States PRACTICED for a sea born landing, combined attack, sea born attack, or sea born invasion against an proposed enemy opponent.

Greyshaft -> RE: Mistakes... (9/13/2013 7:07:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Neilster The term might have been coined later but amphibious invasions had been occurring for thousands of years. Neilster There is a significant difference between an amphibious invasion and an opposed amphibious invasion. Mankind has certainly been unloading ships at enemy-held islands for millenia then marching inland to seek battle, but that is a significantly different event to having your galley shot out from under you and then being dragged under by the weight of your chainmail. I'm not saying opposed landings didn't happen before 1915, but it was mainly in WWII that technology was specifically harnessed to getting the troops off the beaches while under enemy fire.

Neilster -> RE: Mistakes... (9/13/2013 7:54:20 AM)
I know. I was replying to the original assertion. Cheers, Neilster

Joseignacio -> RE: Mistakes... (9/13/2013 10:59:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Neilster quote: As far as I have found the United States was the only country to practice an amphibious assault prior to World War 2. Ever heard of Gallipoli? And of course there are all the others from ancient times onwards...the Persians at Marathon in 490 BC etc... Neilster [:D][:D][:D]

Joseignacio -> RE: Mistakes... (9/13/2013 11:09:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets quote: ORIGINAL: Extraneous quote: ORIGINAL: Neilster quote: As far as I have found the United States was the only country to practice an amphibious assault prior to World War 2. Ever heard of Gallipoli? And of course there are all the others from ancient times onwards...the Persians at Marathon in 490 BC etc... Neilster [:D] Gallipoli and Marathon were PRACTICE? [:D] Amphibious warfare (wikipedia) The term amphibious first emerged in the USA during the 1930s after design of the Landing Vehicle Tracked where the first prototypes were named Alligator and Crocodile, though neither species are amphibian. Amphibious warfare includes operations defined by their type, purpose, scale and means of execution. In the British Empire at the time these were called combined operations which were defined as "...operations where naval, military or air forces in any combination are co-operating with each other, working independently under their respective commanders, but with a common strategic object." All armed forces that employ troops with special training and equipment for conducting landings from naval vessels to shore agree to this definition. Not for those who were there. It probably isn't overstating the case to say that all wars in the Mediterranean in ancient times involved some invasions from ship to shore. I've just finished reading a book on ancient civilizations and their operations in the Med sure had a lot of fighting over control of islands. Continuously. In the old times, here, in the Mediterranean, ships were conceived for centuries more like a way to move soldiers who would do the raids, invasions, et al than like weapons. There are thousands of years of amphibious assaults. I guess Gilgamesh made some by the Euphrates...[:D] Really, sometimes the encyclopedists tend to became pretty nationalistic, an open mind needs to be aware and judge when something is a plain nonsense. Just the Spanish Marines were created in 1537 specifically for amphib warfare, and it's the older known in the world created specifically with this purpose, when there was no sunset in the Spanish Empire and amph warfare was essencial. quote: First Period The battles that the marines served in during this very busy period included: Algiers expedition (1541). Battle of Lepanto (1571). Tunisia expedition (1573). The conquest of Terceira Island (Azores) (1582). Great Britain expedition (1599). San Salvador (Brazil) expedition (1625). But of course there have been plenty of amph invasions before Marines. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Navy_Marines

Joseignacio -> RE: Mistakes... (9/13/2013 11:11:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Greyshaft quote: ORIGINAL: Neilster The term might have been coined later but amphibious invasions had been occurring for thousands of years. Neilster There is a significant difference between an amphibious invasion and an opposed amphibious invasion. Mankind has certainly been unloading ships at enemy-held islands for millenia then marching inland to seek battle, but that is a significantly different event to having your galley shot out from under you and then being dragged under by the weight of your chainmail. I'm not saying opposed landings didn't happen before 1915, but it was mainly in WWII that technology was specifically harnessed to getting the troops off the beaches while under enemy fire. Read the Illiad? Would you call it unopposed landing? They almost threw them back to the sea, destroyed the siegers' defences and burned their shelters...

Mike Parker -> RE: Mistakes... (9/13/2013 2:07:30 PM)
I have been out of the math game for a long time, but a negative probability doesn't make much sense to me. If an event had a negative probability that would only seem to allow the sum of the probabilities of the events having positive probability to exceed 1 which just plain doesn't compute. Although I admit its been 20 years since I did my graduate work in mathematics and that was mostly number theory topology and abstract algebra and just a few prob/statistics courses.

Neilster -> RE: Mistakes... (9/13/2013 2:11:44 PM)
It appears to be in really niche fields and is used in a different way to conventional probability. MWiF uses conventional probability so it's not relevant anyway. Cheers, Neilster

Easo79 -> RE: Mistakes... (9/13/2013 4:27:28 PM)
This summer I have been sunbathing on a daily basis in Santa Pon�a beach [8D]. Exactly the same place where Catalan troops landed in Mallorca, in the Year of the Lord of 1229: there are even some informative panels to instruct the tourists. I have often tried to visualize how my blood-thirsty ancestor, sword in hand, set his foot on the sand, as a prelude to an orgy of conquer and rape that swept the island. But it is also true that the modern concept of amphibious assault, the landing of seaborne troops on hostile shores against active enemy opposition, was little-known before WWII. And after Gallipoli, it was even severely frowned upon. The merit of its revival lies to a great extent on the USA, but not its Army, but its Navy (in fact, a subsection thereof). It was the amphibious assault which gave the US Marine Corps a raison d'�tre during the interwar years, when it was becoming clear that any future Pacific War would be against Japan and base capture was going to be an essential part of that war. That stems from a geographical (I dare say even geometrical) truth. In the tiny islands and atolls of the Pacific, much of the battle was going to be a beach battle, and the density of defenders would necessitate a very deliberate assault to overcome their resistance. But what can not be denied is that many major amphibious operations took part in the European Theater of Operations. But here the situation was entirely different. With hundreds, even thousands, of kilometres of coast to defend, there is no way for the defenders to effectively achieve a huge fire density. Even if the defending forces were concentrated at the beaches, the could easily be cut from supply with paratroops landing in the inland. A concern that did not aply to the Pacific war (imagine a paradrop in Tarawa: a little wind and everyone goes swimming [:(]). Therefore, the ETO landings were an Army thing: men well-trained, but not forming part of a dedicated force: Torch, Sicily, Salerno and most landings all happened without the scary moments of Tarawa and Pelelieu. An exception was Omaha, tough. (But even there the Big Red One was lucky enough to have the assistance of Tom Hanks and Luke Skywalker�[:)]) So, going back to Suez, It is very doubtful that the Commonwealth had the resources to build a Red Sea Wall in Egypt (hundreds of sandy kilometers), and it seems reasonable that any Italian operation there could in essence be the same amphibious operations than those performed during the Punic Wars. Or, for that mattter, similar to the one which brought here my grand-grand-grand-grand�..father.

Extraneous -> RE: Mistakes... (9/14/2013 3:26:12 AM)
1942 Italian plan C3 (German Operation Herkules) According to C3 plan, the combined German and Italian landed units would have required to be daily supplied (from ships and/or planes) with: Bare minimum: 700 tons (520 supplies, 180 potable water). Normal level: 2,400 tons (1,500 supplies, 900 potable water). The Regia Aeronautica expected to be able to daily transport by plane a maximum of 300 tons (while holding an airport) or 150 tons (dropped by parachute only). The source inferred from this data that Italy was expecting a high initial loss ratio of transport planes (maybe 30-50%). The "10" ships. Italian landing craft available for C3 10 x PF (Piroscafo (Steamship)) [Aventino 3,794 tons, Viminale 8,657 tons, Quirinale 3,770 tons, Italia 5,203 tons, Milano 4,028 tons, Citta' di Tunisi 5,419 tons, Calino 5,186 tons, Rosandra 8,034 tons, Francesco Crispi 7,600 tons, Donizzetti 2,428 tons] Small passenger ships. Capacity: from 800 to 1,400 men. 6 x PFC (Piroscafo da carico (Cargoship)) [ ? ] As above, but loaded with cargo. Capacity 3,000 tons. 2 x NT (Nave traghetto (Ferryboat) [Messina, Aspromonte] Ex-Messina Strait railway ferries. 1,000 tons. Capacity 4-8 tanks each. 4 x MC (Motocisterna (Landing Ship Tank)) - [Sesia, Tirso, Scrivia, Garigliano] Pre-war purpose-built LST. Utilized for artillery transport. Could carry two 75mm Btys with vehicles. 5 x PM (Posamine (Minelayers)) [Buccari, Durazzo, Pelagosa, Crotone, Vieste] Ex-light minelayer. Makeshift bow ramp (motorcycle-able). Capacity 500 men. 2 x MN (Motonave (Motorboat)) [Aquileia and ?] Ex-Venice ferries. Similar to PM. Capacity 400 men. 4 x PFP (Piroscafo Piccolo (Small Steamship)) [Tabarca, Sauro, Mafalda, Argentina] Ex-Capri ferries. As MN. 70 x MZ (Motozattera (Landing Barge)) [50 Italians, 20 Germans] German MPF model. 250 tons, 10 knots. Armament 1x76/40, 1x20/65. Bow loading ramp. Capacity: 220 men, or vehicles for 50 tons. Italy leased the rights from Germany to build these due to Italy's lack of landing craft. 30 x MV (Motoveliero (Motorized Sailing Ship)) Ex-trawlers. Makeshift bow ramp (men only). HMG-armed. Capacity: 300 men or 100 tons of supplies. 24 x MF (Motoscafo(Motorboat)) Ex-Venice motorboats. 20 tons. LMG-armed. Capacity: 75 men. 50 x ML (Motolancia(Small Motorboat)) Littler still motorboats. 15 tons. Capacity: 30 men.

bo -> RE: Mistakes... (9/14/2013 3:58:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: composer99 On topic: System mastery is an important component of player skill in (M)WiF as in any game. Learning the system is IMO best done in digestible chunks. As such, I would agree with the scenario booklet and with other veteran players posting here: - Barbarossa is a good starting point: you learn the land/air game, the turn/impulse system, production, and even a little politics (such as it is in (M)WiF). - Guadalcanal is an important next step: you learn the naval/air game, combined arms operations, and how to work with what you have (important for naval stuff that takes 2 years to build and 2 die rolls to sink). I would heartily recommend (and endorse any others' recommendations) to understand both scenarios relatively well before proceeding with the main game. ===== Off topic: It transpires that, as a mathematical concept, negative probability is "a thing" (as the kids say these days), mostly used in financial modelling and quantum mechanics (both IMO apropos). It's fair to say I don't see it having any particular relevance to MWiF, but it is out there. composer99 I agree with you 110% you are right on First let me say I never played the WIF board game, I did buy the CWIF game but did not like it at all, I thought poorly done, and that had no AI either and never will. MWIF will. To me Barbarossa is kind of cut and dried, the same old moving units into the vast spaces of the Soviet union in every computer war game, War in the East, Strategic Command, 3rd Reich, Panzer Corp on and on. It is well done in MWIF but I prefer the Pacific war, when Red Prince was among us [still alive[;)]] he did a great AAR on Barbarossa several years ago. I will try to do a AAR for the Pacific war but I am not in his class and dont have half of his knowledge about this game. Guadalcanal, Day of Infamy and Global war will have a lot of the Pacific fighting in it. Bo

Easo79 -> RE: Mistakes... (9/20/2013 10:37:19 PM)
I place the following questions here, because probably they are a mistake in themselves FIRST QUESTION. In the description of many types of air combat, there is the following sentence at the start: "your opponent flies combat patrol to potential target hexes" How must this be interpreted? a) "your opponent has been wise enough and in previous turn /impulses he has placed a nice fighter umbrella over his most important spots" b)"once you declare your intention to bomb, e.g, a port...he hurries up and places a nice fighter umbrella over his most important ports" (A related question: Combat Patrol does protect one hex, or all hexes in range?) SECOND QUESTION Let's imagine that Britain falls...some kind of Sealion.... Which options remain for the Allies to return to Europe? Is it possible in game terms to funnel USA and CW land/air units units through the USSR (perhaps via Australia-Persia) to fight along the Red Army?

Orm -> RE: Mistakes... (9/20/2013 11:31:32 PM)
A fighter flying combat air patrol (CAP) is attempting to anticipate an attack on a threatened location. Generally, you should only use it if the target hex is likely to need fighter protection and your fighter could not fly interception to the hex. A fighter flying CAP uses its printed range. A fighter flying a interception mission uses half its printed range. The order in which you fly these missions is important. Every time where a air mission can be flown the order is as follows (with minor variations depending on mission type). 1) The opponent fly CAP to potential target hexes 2) I fly all my bombers and escorting fighters to target hexes 3) My enemy flies bombers and escorting fighters to target hexes (if allowed). He also send up his intercepting fighters 4) I fly intercepting fighters 5) Fight air-to-air combats 6) Resolve missions 7) Return to base 8) Disorganize all surviving aircraft when they land Please tell me if I should try to explain it in another way. [:)]

Easo79 -> RE: Mistakes... (9/21/2013 1:08:11 AM)
When happens 1)? Imagine, I am Germany...its my impulse...I want to bomb London...this is STEP 2 in your list...so... should the CAP over London have been placed during a previous CW impulse? Or, alternatively, the order during my impulse is... a) I say: "I want to strategic bomb (section 11.7) a city" b) CW places the CAP over those cities that are important for him c) I fly my escorted bombers etc etc. ? Put it in another way, during my impulse, should I place the CAP in advance over those places that are likely targets during the next impulse (my opponent's impulse). Is that my last chance to place the CAP, or have I the chance to place the CAP during my opponent's impulse?

paulderynck -> RE: Mistakes... (9/21/2013 1:15:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Easo79 When happens 1)? Imagine, I am Germany...its my impulse...I want to bomb London...this is STEP 2 in your list...so... should the CAP over London have been placed during a previous CW impulse? Or, alternatively, the order during my impulse is... a) I say: "I want to strategic bomb (section 11.7) a city" b) CW places the CAP over those cities that are important for him c) I fly my escorted bombers etc etc. ? Put it in another way, during my impulse, should I place the CAP in advance over those places that are likely targets during the next impulse (my opponent's impulse). Is that my last chance to place the CAP, or have I the chance to place the CAP during my opponent's impulse? Essentially you are right that it is done in advance. But if you are doing the Strategic Bombing, then I fly CAP at the start of YOUR Strategic Bombing phase. I actually don't know if you'll bomb the place where the CAP is, or somewhere else or anything at all! Sometimes CAP is flown and the person whose phase it is says: "That's nice, but I have no missions of that type to fly, thanks anyway. Now please return your fighters to base and signify they are disorganized (i.e. flip them) so we both know you can't use them again this turn unless you re-organize them."

Easo79 -> RE: Mistakes... (9/21/2013 1:18:28 AM)
Another way to ask the question. 11.2 Port attack ..... ..... 11.7 Strategic bombardment During 11.2, is the CAP defending against possible 11.7 strategic bombings already in place?. Or does phase 11.7 begin with the defending side placing his CAP over cities likely to be bombed?

Easo79 -> RE: Mistakes... (9/21/2013 1:21:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: paulderynck quote: ORIGINAL: Easo79 When happens 1)? Imagine, I am Germany...its my impulse...I want to bomb London...this is STEP 2 in your list...so... should the CAP over London have been placed during a previous CW impulse? Or, alternatively, the order during my impulse is... a) I say: "I want to strategic bomb (section 11.7) a city" b) CW places the CAP over those cities that are important for him c) I fly my escorted bombers etc etc. ? Put it in another way, during my impulse, should I place the CAP in advance over those places that are likely targets during the next impulse (my opponent's impulse). Is that my last chance to place the CAP, or have I the chance to place the CAP during my opponent's impulse? Essentially you are right that it is done in advance. But if you are doing the Strategic Bombing, then I fly CAP at the start of YOUR Strategic Bombing phase. I actually don't know if you'll bomb the place where the CAP is, or somewhere else or anything at all! Sometimes CAP is flown and the person whose phase it is says: "That's nice, but I have no missions of that type to fly, thanks anyway. Now please return your fighters to base and signify they are disorganized (i.e. flip them) so we both know you can't use them again this turn unless you re-organize them." Ah...OK, that is what I did not know....thanks...

paulderynck -> RE: Mistakes... (9/21/2013 1:22:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Easo79 Another way to ask the question. 11.2 Port attack ..... ..... 11.7 Strategic bombardment During 11.2, is the CAP defending against possible 11.7 strategic bombings already in place?. Or does phase 11.7 begin with the defending side placing his CAP over cities likely to be bombed? It is phase by phase. Now you may be seeing why PBEM will be a real challenge for playing WiF.

Easo79 -> RE: Mistakes... (9/21/2013 1:48:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: paulderynck quote: ORIGINAL: Easo79 Another way to ask the question. 11.2 Port attack ..... ..... 11.7 Strategic bombardment During 11.2, is the CAP defending against possible 11.7 strategic bombings already in place?. Or does phase 11.7 begin with the defending side placing his CAP over cities likely to be bombed? It is phase by phase. Now you may be seeing why PBEM will be a real challenge for playing WiF. Yes..a nightmare So, to recapitulate. During my impulse, I fly my fighters to escort the bombers, and then they return to base During my opponent's impulse, I fly my fighters from that base to CAP as needed (or feared) Although in theory the base could be the same as the hex CAPped, there is no need for the player to do so. A German fighter in Romania during early Barbarossa could escort bombers ("towards the East") doing ground attacks during my impulse and then could CAP ("towards the West") over Ploesti during my opponent's impulse (if range allows)

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Mistakes... (9/21/2013 3:01:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Easo79 quote: ORIGINAL: paulderynck quote: ORIGINAL: Easo79 Another way to ask the question. 11.2 Port attack ..... ..... 11.7 Strategic bombardment During 11.2, is the CAP defending against possible 11.7 strategic bombings already in place?. Or does phase 11.7 begin with the defending side placing his CAP over cities likely to be bombed? It is phase by phase. Now you may be seeing why PBEM will be a real challenge for playing WiF. Yes..a nightmare So, to recapitulate. During my impulse, I fly my fighters to escort the bombers, and then they return to base During my opponent's impulse, I fly my fighters from that base to CAP as needed (or feared) Although in theory the base could be the same as the hex CAPped, there is no need for the player to do so. A German fighter in Romania during early Barbarossa could escort bombers ("towards the East") doing ground attacks during my impulse and then could CAP ("towards the West") over Ploesti during my opponent's impulse (if range allows) Once an air unit returns to base (at the end of a phase) it is disorganized and unable to fly until it becomes reorganized: either by disorganizing units with reorganization capabilities (e.g., HQs) at the end of the impulse, or, more usually, at the end of the turn.

Orm -> RE: Mistakes... (9/21/2013 8:24:13 AM)
quote: SECOND QUESTION Let's imagine that Britain falls...some kind of Sealion.... Which options remain for the Allies to return to Europe? Is it possible in game terms to funnel USA and CW land/air units units through the USSR (perhaps via Australia-Persia) to fight along the Red Army? If UK has fallen to Axis the there is a hard to return to Europe but it is not impossible. The route picked depends on how much that Axis has managed to capture and garrison. US can make long range invasion across the Atlantic but against a defended coast I doubt it will be a success. But US might be able to invade in North-West Africa or even West Africa first and then make a drive north versus Gibraltar. There are also some Islands in the Atlantic that might be used as bases for a invasion of mainland Europe. EuroAxis has a long coast to defend and counter density in defence of it is probably low somewhere. Or if a minor country, like Portugal, is neutral then US could invade there. US and CW might be able to funnel units through USSR but it needs HQs located in USSR dedicated to this task. Western Allies may not have more units in the Soviet Union than the HQs they have there has in reorganization value. This rule makes it difficult to fight alongside USSR. But US could take over the defence of a remote area, like Murmansk. And from Murmansk they might capture Petsamo, Finland, or ports in Norway and use Finland or Norway as a build up area. Maybe they can capture Shetland Islands, Faeroes Islands, Iceland or Ireland and invade UK from there. A lot of this depends on how much of the Royal Navy survived the battle for UK. They will not surrender just because UK has been conquered. It also depends on whether CW still controls Gibraltar or the Suez channel. If either is Allied controlled then US should make it a priority to keep it Allied and then use that as a route of attack.

Orm -> RE: Mistakes... (9/21/2013 8:39:12 AM)
About CAP. I almost never fly CAP missions. If it is late in the turn and a very important hex might be attacked, like Gibraltar, then there is a possibility that I might fly a CAP mission to defend that hex. But usually it is just a waste of fighters to fly CAP. I try to have my fighters close enough to the front that they can fly intercept missions instead of CAP. And if they are not in range to intercept then I will save the fighter for later. If my opponent fly CAP I often pick other targets for this impulse instead and save my own aircrafts for next impulse. Then I can attack those hexes when he has less fighters available. I would suggest to anyone new to WIF that never use CAP until they have, at least, played several turns so you get a feel for the game. Flying CAP is usually a mistake.

petracelli -> RE: Mistakes... (9/21/2013 8:54:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets Any Allied major power building armor in 1939. Steve Would have to disagree with this. Although the CW cannot afford it if you take the risk of building an armour it can secure North Africa and here is nothing wrong with Ussr building armour. Cheers Phil

Centuur -> RE: Mistakes... (9/21/2013 1:13:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Easo79 quote: ORIGINAL: paulderynck quote: ORIGINAL: Easo79 Another way to ask the question. 11.2 Port attack ..... ..... 11.7 Strategic bombardment During 11.2, is the CAP defending against possible 11.7 strategic bombings already in place?. Or does phase 11.7 begin with the defending side placing his CAP over cities likely to be bombed? It is phase by phase. Now you may be seeing why PBEM will be a real challenge for playing WiF. Yes..a nightmare So, to recapitulate. During my impulse, I fly my fighters to escort the bombers, and then they return to base During my opponent's impulse, I fly my fighters from that base to CAP as needed (or feared) Although in theory the base could be the same as the hex CAPped, there is no need for the player to do so. A German fighter in Romania during early Barbarossa could escort bombers ("towards the East") doing ground attacks during my impulse and then could CAP ("towards the West") over Ploesti during my opponent's impulse (if range allows) Things are not so easy... Say you are the CW, and I'm mr. Hermann G�ring ordering the Luftwaffe to stratigically bomb the UK. Now, CAP flown by the CW has to be pronounced during the German impulse. So the first phase during Strategic bombardment will be the question: will the CW defend London, using CAP or not. If they do and fly the fighters (FTR) to London, than G�ring can say: thank you, but I will attack the factory at Coventry instead... So usually it is better to react to the Luftwaffe. This comes, however, with a penalty, since than you are intercepting the enemy planes and your FTR can only move half their allowance (mostly two hexes in stead of 3 with the early Spitfires and Hurricanes). The sequence is as roughly as followes (all in the German impulse) CW announces CAP and can fly FTR's at full range Germany flies bombers and escorting FTR's at full range CW flies intercepting FTR's at half range Air to air commences, bombs away and every plane in the attack which survives fly home and the pilots are going to have a beer at the local pub... [;)] for the rest of the two months turn... This means that there are a lot of decisions to be made by the CW during the German impulse (and that's made WiF such an amazing good game, both sides have to do things in each-others impulses). This means also you can only use an air unit once in a turn (which can have up to 6 impulses for each side) except when then unit is reorganised by a HQ in that turn...

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Mistakes... (9/21/2013 5:15:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: petracelli quote: ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets Any Allied major power building armor in 1939. Steve Would have to disagree with this. Although the CW cannot afford it if you take the risk of building an armour it can secure North Africa and here is nothing wrong with Ussr building armour. Cheers Phil Many agree with you. I look forward to converting everyone to my way of thinking by punishing them for building armor early as the Allies.[8D]

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4] 5 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.625