Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR (Full Version)

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



Message

rkr1958 -> Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR (6/30/2016 3:12:55 AM)

To catch folks up.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rkr1958
My preference is to play the allies.

Below is my initial proposal for the optional rules we use. These are the same optional rules I'm using in the AAR I'm currently doing with the exception of HQ movement. I'm finding this optional rule is an issue for moving Shiang Kai-shek. There's no way he can get into the mountains in central or southern China without becoming disorganized. But, I'm ok playing with it on too.

Also, I propose we house rule the "USSR-Japan compulsory peace" and some sort of USSR-Japanese pact in place at the start of the game. If you like that idea, then I'll defer to your experience with WiF on how we should one or both.


quote:

ORIGINAL: ashkpa

No problem with posting an AAR.

Versions. I'm currently on 2.2.6 and living with the air combat issue. I can easily convert back to 2.2.5.

No problem with taking the axis.

I'm ok with your optional rule selection for the most part. My current MWIF game is different in several areas, but I'll only comment on the ones that I am more concerned with.
I have never used the construction engineer optional. In the board game it was too difficult to keep track of all the factories and ports. That is easier on the computer, but I'm not sure how it will impact the actual usage of engineers in the game.
I've tried the unlimited breakdown in my current game. It works ok since the corp broken down are removed from the game until reformed. I am ok either way here.
I like defensive shore bombardment in general (as the axis I probably should not say that), but it is not a must have.
I have always found limited overseas supply helps to make the Pacific war a bit more active. Without it, it always seems to fall back to a waiting game, with both sides keeping their main fleets in port until the other makes a move.
I have liked emergency HQ supply, though I have seldom used it in an actual game.
I have liked night missions, but again I have seldom actually used in a game.
I do not like Chinese attack weakness. The Nationalist are already weak and this just ensures they never attack (again, I am arguing the wrong way as the axis player :-)).

None of these are deal breakers, just my thoughts.

Relative to Japan and Russia, I am fine with us playing with the compulsory peace optional.

As far as starting with a peace pac, I believe in game we can come up with deal. What does RU wants to offer the Japanese for this deal? :-)


[image]local://upfiles/31901/872D90729AA2490A96DAB3F98D981C48.jpg[/image]



rkr1958 -> RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR (6/30/2016 3:35:18 AM)

Optional Rules Negotiations.

1. I have never used the construction engineer optional. In the board game it was too difficult to keep track of all the factories and ports. That is easier on the computer, but I'm not sure how it will impact the actual usage of engineers in the game. Agree not to use.

2. I've tried the unlimited breakdown in my current game. It works ok since the corp broken down are removed from the game until reformed. I am ok either way here. Why not, I'll give it a try


3. I like defensive shore bombardment in general (as the axis I probably should not say that), but it is not a must have. OK.

4. I have always found limited overseas supply helps to make the Pacific war a bit more active. Without it, it always seems to fall back to a waiting game, with both sides keeping their main fleets in port until the other makes a move. I've never used this rule and not sure what to do. But, if you or someone else can fill me in on how this rule changes play and what I need to do to make sure I keep my troops in supply then sure, why not.

5. I have liked emergency HQ supply, though I have seldom used it in an actual game. Again, I've never used this rule and not sure what it does but if someone can educate me on it I'll play with it.

6. I have liked night missions, but again I have seldom actually used in a game. OK

7. I do not like Chinese attack weakness. The Nationalist are already weak and this just ensures they never attack (again, I am arguing the wrong way as the axis player :-)). I need all the help I can get, so sure I'll play with it.

8. Relative to Japan and Russia, I am fine with us playing with the compulsory peace optional. As far as starting with a peace pac, I believe in game we can come up with deal. What does RU wants to offer the Japanese for this deal? Comrade Stalin offers Prime Minister Hideki Tojo a 1-year, 6-turn (Sep/Oct '39 - Jul/Aug '40) non-aggression pact where neither the Soviet Union or Japan will attack each other to either be renegotiated or not after said year.



rkr1958 -> RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR (6/30/2016 3:43:00 AM)

P.S.,

MWiF version 2.2.6 is fine. I'll apply the hotfix.



rkr1958 -> RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR (6/30/2016 3:54:27 AM)

Optional Rules. Do these look good?

[image]local://upfiles/31901/928A537A72184F5F834C39DA7E5D69F6.jpg[/image]



ashkpa -> RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR (6/30/2016 4:18:33 AM)

Relative to 4. This basically requires that you have a CP (transports and amphs work as well) in a seazone to trace supply through it. What I have found, is that you get more small excursions trying to cut supply before a big operation. It is a much bigger issue for the allies and does require more CP to be built and probably more will be lost in keeping supply open.

Relative to 5. It allows you to flip an HQ, who then can provide supply to a limited number of units (up to his reorg value) on his side for the impulse. Not very common to find it useful, but it is a nice option at times.

Pact deal ok, with an additional condition that any declaration of war on Persia by either side voids the pact.



ashkpa -> RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR (6/30/2016 4:19:56 AM)

Is there an additional patch to 2.2.6? Or are we just living with the incorrect air results until the next version.



Mayhemizer_slith -> RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR (6/30/2016 4:22:14 AM)

Can't wait to see when action begings... [&o]



rkr1958 -> RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR (6/30/2016 4:26:44 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ashkpa

Relative to 4. This basically requires that you have a CP (transports and amphs work as well) in a seazone to trace supply through it. What I have found, is that you get more small excursions trying to cut supply before a big operation. It is a much bigger issue for the allies and does require more CP to be built and probably more will be lost in keeping supply open.

Relative to 5. It allows you to flip an HQ, who then can provide supply to a limited number of units (up to his reorg value) on his side for the impulse. Not very common to find it useful, but it is a nice option at times.

Pact deal ok, with an additional condition that any declaration of war on Persia by either side voids the pact.
Agree.


quote:

ORIGINAL: ashkpa

Is there an additional patch to 2.2.6? Or are we just living with the incorrect air results until the next version.
I pretty sure that 2.2.6 is the latest and that we will be living with the incorrect air results until updated.

Ok then, I'll start. In fact I've already completed the USA setup under the assumption that the optional rules are ok and with the risk that I'd have to redo it if not. [:)]

I was just waiting on how to setup the Soviets depending on whether or not they and Japan reached an agreement. Now I will proceed with the Soviets. [8D]



rkr1958 -> RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR (6/30/2016 5:02:28 AM)

Setup. Lend Lease. Allies.

[image]local://upfiles/31901/AFC46D284C68449985A9D885B5D66FE2.jpg[/image]



rkr1958 -> RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR (6/30/2016 5:03:01 AM)

Setup. USA Entry Pool.

[image]local://upfiles/31901/56EE783FF72446889792AFCC33E219D0.jpg[/image]



rkr1958 -> RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR (6/30/2016 5:03:21 AM)

Setup. USA Scrapped.

[image]local://upfiles/31901/0ADE47C97C9E4AA1A68F6D4872F39F58.jpg[/image]



rkr1958 -> RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR (6/30/2016 5:03:44 AM)

Setup. USA CP Setup.

[image]local://upfiles/31901/B9C3AF0ABEDA486DAFA5E94A05867D11.jpg[/image]



rkr1958 -> RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR (6/30/2016 5:04:13 AM)

Setup. USA Continental Setup.

[image]local://upfiles/31901/8C35068AB277475D9229D4C8D81269EE.jpg[/image]



rkr1958 -> RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR (6/30/2016 5:04:44 AM)

Setup. USA Philippines Setup.

[image]local://upfiles/31901/E266656771124014A9E70BAE210B3B6E.jpg[/image]



rkr1958 -> RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR (6/30/2016 5:05:09 AM)

Setup. USSR Scrapped.

[image]local://upfiles/31901/A1076654930D49F69750C4A7EC3D441C.jpg[/image]



rkr1958 -> RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR (6/30/2016 5:05:36 AM)

Setup. USSR European Setup.

[image]local://upfiles/31901/64BF6207B16344158F23AF56216B8C6F.jpg[/image]



rkr1958 -> RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR (6/30/2016 5:05:59 AM)

Setup. USSR Asian Setup.

[image]local://upfiles/31901/FD64E4DFCCC342DF9F7EA6BF1D50935A.jpg[/image]



rkr1958 -> RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR (6/30/2016 5:06:20 AM)

Setup. USSR CP Setup.

[image]local://upfiles/31901/8E2ABA28BC344B548A04AD655F1E1702.jpg[/image]



rkr1958 -> RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR (6/30/2016 5:12:53 AM)

Oh, by the way, I assume we're emailing game files back and forth which I just did for the Italian setup.



Jagdtiger14 -> RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR (6/30/2016 5:16:00 AM)

I'll follow this one too...thanks for playing 2d10!



ashkpa -> RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR (6/30/2016 5:30:15 AM)

Note, with unlimited breakdowns, the 3-5 MOT could provide two MOT-divisions.



Jagdtiger14 -> RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR (6/30/2016 5:34:06 AM)

quote:

4. I have always found limited overseas supply helps to make the Pacific war a bit more active. Without it, it always seems to fall back to a waiting game, with both sides keeping their main fleets in port until the other makes a move. I've never used this rule and not sure what to do. But, if you or someone else can fill me in on how this rule changes play and what I need to do to make sure I keep my troops in supply then sure, why not.


I've only played with this a couple times as it became too tedious for a board game. However, by computer, this might not be a bad option to play with. In our games the Japanese and US sailed out their CA's into various forward sea zones, in fact almost all sea zones had a CA's in the 4 or 3 box. The Japanese CA's are superior, but the main reason is to slow down the enemy. Its actually quite fun.

I disagree that the Pacific falls back to a waiting game...I have never seen a game like that (other than the US waiting for the Essex CV's). The Japanese need to use their fleet as much as possible and aggressively before the Essex class CV's show up (Fall '42)...the US waits for the Essex class, then makes their march across the Pacific. The Japanese fleet becomes a fleet in being, and only committed to critical events...normally protecting the Tokyo Express. If the Japanese aggressively built out their CV's (all of them including the CVL's), then there is a 1 year (or less depending on if the US advance built their 2nd round of Essex CV's) window before the second year Essex come on line where there could be many opportunities for huge carrier battles




rkr1958 -> RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR (6/30/2016 5:37:51 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ashkpa

Note, with unlimited breakdowns, the 3-5 MOT could provide two MOT-divisions.

I did think of that but didn't keep it because of the cost. It's going to take me a bit to get use to playing with unlimited divisions.



Jagdtiger14 -> RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR (6/30/2016 5:44:07 AM)

I just got the game and played solitaire with unlimited breakdowns. I love it! It's my belief that it is also pro-Axis...although I think the USSR can take advantage of it on the Allied side.



ashkpa -> RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR (6/30/2016 6:20:09 AM)

Here is the Italian Scrap screen.

[image]local://upfiles/47448/4E3A88DA559343B79D85FC43BE24DA41.jpg[/image]



ashkpa -> RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR (6/30/2016 6:28:32 AM)

Here is a collage of the Italian Setup. I did break down one 3-3 INF corp.

[image]local://upfiles/47448/1F733B358025474282AFA45E86291512.jpg[/image]



rkr1958 -> RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR (6/30/2016 6:41:25 AM)

Uh-oh. Looks like the Italians have the French in their sights and they aren't kidding around. I'll have to sleep on this one. Goodnight all. [:)]



brian brian -> RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR (6/30/2016 7:23:04 AM)

Hooray, more human-vs-human WiF to follow, thanks guys!

I think we can all agree that it isn't necessary to post the US Entry pool for all to see, however. [8D]



rkr1958 -> RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR (6/30/2016 12:39:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian

Hooray, more human-vs-human WiF to follow, thanks guys!

I think we can all agree that it isn't necessary to post the US Entry pool for all to see, however. [8D]

Oh ... too much solitary play. [:(]



Centuur -> RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR (6/30/2016 1:36:38 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian

Hooray, more human-vs-human WiF to follow, thanks guys!

I think we can all agree that it isn't necessary to post the US Entry pool for all to see, however. [8D]

Oh ... too much solitary play. [:(]



[image]local://upfiles/38590/9F5A68E2BBE74BB78148229BF1EC35D1.jpg[/image]


Now, I want to see how this one will turn out to be. I'll be watching this closely [;)]

Have fun, guys! [8D]



Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.71875