RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR (Full Version)

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



Message

Courtenay -> RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR (12/8/2017 4:14:16 PM)

It seems very reasonable that you resign. Another thing that will go wrong is that the Germans can rail four bad corps into Syria and align Irag; then rail those corps into Irag, and align Iran.

I hope that you had fun!



Mayhemizer_slith -> RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR (12/8/2017 4:41:45 PM)

Good game guys, thank you [&o]



rkr1958 -> RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR (12/8/2017 10:36:34 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Courtenay

It seems very reasonable that you resign. Another thing that will go wrong is that the Germans can rail four bad corps into Syria and align Irag; then rail those corps into Irag, and align Iran.

I hope that you had fun!
Thanks! I did ... and I also learned a lot. [:)]


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mayhemizer

Good game guys, thank you [&o]
Thanks! [:)]



jjdenver -> RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR (12/9/2017 1:20:20 AM)

As your first game of WIF vs a human I'm sure you learned a ton Ronnie. In about 10 games you'll realize you knew very little following this game. Then in about 100 games you'll probably realize you knew very little after 10 games. This game is big, huge even, and lots of fun. Thanks for the AAR.



Courtenay -> RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR (12/9/2017 3:29:01 AM)

Could you please post a save of the final position? It would be interesting to look at. Thanks!



rkr1958 -> RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR (12/9/2017 3:29:11 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jjdenver

As your first game of WIF vs a human I'm sure you learned a ton Ronnie. In about 10 games you'll realize you knew very little following this game. Then in about 100 games you'll probably realize you knew very little after 10 games. This game is big, huge even, and lots of fun. Thanks for the AAR.
If I live long enough to play 100 games, I'll be one lucky man indeed. [:)]



JagdFlanker -> RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR (12/9/2017 12:11:07 PM)

thanks for the great read guys!



Zecke -> RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR (12/9/2017 12:19:01 PM)

THAK YOU¡

thanks..really god AAR

SIDRA for ever; read it fast¡



Centuur -> RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR (12/9/2017 1:09:46 PM)

It was a good AAR to follow.



rkr1958 -> RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR (12/9/2017 1:51:39 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Courtenay

Could you please post a save of the final position? It would be interesting to look at. Thanks!

Attached is the last game turn, the one on which I conceded. Not only note axis troop positions and control but how strong economically all the axis are in both production and oil.



Courtenay -> RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR (12/10/2017 3:03:00 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

quote:

ORIGINAL: Courtenay

Could you please post a save of the final position? It would be interesting to look at. Thanks!

Attached is the last game turn, the one on which I conceded. Not only note axis troop positions and control but how strong economically all the axis are in both production and oil.

Thank you.



ashkpa -> RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR (12/10/2017 3:32:40 PM)

Since this was set up as a learning game for Ronnie, I took some notes for him while playing. He is ok with me posting them here. I know there are better players out there who may have refinement for these notes as well.

Here are some thoughts on the past game. Some of these are based on things I was taught over the last 20+ years of playing the game.

* At it's core WIF is an economic game. You need to get resource to support your factories and troops (oil) and prevent your opponent from getting their full share.

* Especially with PIF, you need to build fighters. There is often a fighter race, at the expense of LND and NAV bombers. If you get behind in this it can be hard to catch up. I know some who will advance build fighters to stay ahead of this race, though you see that more without PIF than with PIF.

* CW needs to build TERR early to prevent Italy getting ahead of the curve in Africa (you can build other units, but I find TERR cheaper, though you often get them in the wrong place). As you found, it can be difficult to stop Italy from moving south. Once they take a few countries, they can use the new Territorials to continue the move south. Note, I have never achieved as much in that direction as I did in this game.

* Keep fleet and air in the same sea-box, even if it means not going to the highest possible box. This is a rule of thumb and there are time when exceptions need to be made. Splitting them allows for your forces to be taken apart in detail if the opponent is lucky with search rolls. This happened to you several times and made it easier for me to keep your naval growth a bit in check.

* I noticed you had not laid all the Hulls for your Essex carriers in '43. I will usually build all of the USA carriers as soon as possible (without advance building) through '43. I often don't lay any more Hulls in 44. In this case, without those carriers on the way, the Japanese were going to maintain parity with the USA through 44, which would have made future advancements difficult, especially once the recently build Synths came online and the oil shortage was alleviated.

* Don't land too early in Europe. It often ends in disaster (as it did for your '42 invasion). It is better to attach the periphery and force the axis to divide their forces over a longer front.

* Defend the Caucus' in the mountains. Start early to put your weaker units (3 and 4 strength land units down in the mountains defending passes that can only be attacked by one hex). I have learned to do that long before I think I might need it. After the land war with Germany starts, I will often put any rebuild 3 and 4 strength armies down there instead of on the front with the Germans. They are usually too weak to withstand a multi-hex attack in clear or forest terrain on the main front.

* I tend to use Liverpool as my main port for the CW. It borders the Faeroe's Gap and the Bay of Biscay making it an ideal location for replacing CP lines. It is also a bit further from France and fighters defending it are also available to defend the northern factories in a Battle of Britain scenario.

* Be very careful of any deals between RU and JP. Often, as in this game, RU is a main defender of China even if not at war, by forcing the Japanese to respect a potential war.



brian brian -> RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR (12/10/2017 4:19:28 PM)

I like a couple TERRitorial builds for the CW for certain purposes - to garrison India and free up regular Indian troops for use outside India. TERR are also good stiffeners if CW defense areas - cheap infantry - but must be stacked with regular CW troops, even if just a division.

For micro (in terms of unit density) campaigns in Africa, Option 47 deters these quite well, outside of MWiF. Simply cut the Libyan “Camel Corps” line of advance and it can’t advance any more. And as WiF is an economic game, there is little chance the Axis can gain much via land in Africa. Only a relatively rich Axis should be able to build ‘leap frog’ style Italian TERR.

Normally, the Belgian Congo TERR can prevent the Libyans from disrupting Allied economics in the southern half of Africa (esp. in conjunction with Option 47). If it looks like the Allies have zero chance to hold the line of the Dyle from a well positioned German DOW, placing the Belgian CAV in the Congo can be even more effective at ending any chance of shoe-string Axis shenanigans down there.

One of the best “money” areas of the map is the Middle East and Italian BPs spent can achieve a more likely ROI there than in Africa.


As they are forced back, the Russians need to build up their combat power via judiciously scrapping their non-elite Infantry class units. Spending 1 Build Point for 1 - 1.3 land combat factor will not result in a force that can stand up to the more powerful German units. The Russians can never re-build all 3 dozen of their leg infantry armies at once anyway. It’s a delicate operation to trade in just enough units to slow the Germans but eventually they have to absolutely turn and fight at the Caucasus as an absolute priority over all other fronts. The ‘funnel’ shape of Russia will slowly dilute Axis power everywhere else (though Murmansk and Archangel also must be held; Western Allied troops can help there). And the Russians can often use four Convoy Points in the Caspian Sea - an important build. The HQ-A based logistics in WiF give the Axis quite some advantage over their historical counterparts.



Courtenay -> RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR (12/10/2017 4:33:06 PM)

One thing I would like to see an analysis of what went wrong in China. China went down awfully fast; what could Ronnie have done better in China?



brian brian -> RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR (12/11/2017 4:38:09 PM)

Ronnie's set-up in China was very good - I nicked a few ideas from it myself.



TeaLeaf -> RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR (12/11/2017 7:55:55 PM)

Very nice to watch indeed. Kept coming back.

What went wrong in China?
Maybe the nationalist Chinese defended too much forward positions.
The further forward they defend, the larger the front becomes. And since the number of units China can defend with does not increase, the gap between southern-, center- and north fronts gets wider. This effect was even stronger in this particular game because a lot (too much) Nationalists were defending Communist area.
After Japan destroyed a few Nat. Chinese (some were lucky shots, but were not normally game breaking), the gaps had become too wide for Chinese units to close (too far to walk and no rail lines) and Japanese units poured in.

Personally I pefer the Chinese to start their defense (set up) a little more backwards, in a smaller front all in the mountains. This way all units are closer to each other and more easily relocate to areas where Japan comes in strong.
Chinese units/fronts need to be closer to one another, since strategic relocating of units always has to be done on foot (when do Nat. Chinese ever rail move?). But this is no guarantee to success, ofc...

More general note:
* Create bigger stacks. Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought to have seen too much single-unit 'stacks' defending.

That's my two cents. Anything else would just be repeating after the others. But you know what they say: Bachelors’ wives and maidens’ children are well taught ;-).



brian brian -> RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR (12/12/2017 3:52:31 AM)

The reason I liked the set-up was the Nationalist commitment in the north actually. The ChiComms start with four units to defend Si-An, a hex with a major economic swing that the Japanese should desire greatly. On top of that, if the Japanese can eliminate those four units in a long, sunny first turn they are well on their way to a chance at conquering the Communists, who are their more dangerous opponent later in the war as they don’t suffer from Attack Weakness (don’t dwell on the realism here, it’s just a game).

Even if the Japanese can’t reach Lan-Chow, pushing Mao back to that area could likely gain them an extra six months of breathing space defending the resources in China later on, which is quite difficult on the big new map when they also need to take Naval impulses.

Conversely, the Communists have a lot of units in the force pools and if they simply make it through the Fall of 39 OK, it becomes quite difficult for Japan to ever reach Si-An. The best Japanese play is to hit them hard on the first turn, in my opinion.

So the stakes are high in north China on the first turn, and the Chinese have the dis-advantage of setting up first, which is a challenge. And is just their first challenge; commanding them successfully after that can be a tricky business against a defermined IJA receiving heavy reinforcements.



Dabrion -> RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR (12/12/2017 11:31:44 AM)

Have you considered switching sides, might be away to get some more fun out of he game. I found it often more instructive to play a game to the end to see the late war dynamics than playing multiple games to the midgame and concede them there!

Allies are in a tough spot here. With Japan in Chita, Turkey joined in on the Axis side and the Rock fallen it looks grim indeed. Due to failed builds the Wallies are probably one or even two years away from a comeback. And it seems the time so far was used for a over-committed Morocco. I see France is light on defences, but the sole focus on Morocco kinda allows for that.

WAllies hold on to Suez, Aden, the better part of India, Rabauls and Kwajalein; RU can survive in the Urals if they abandon Moscow area and get rid of the convex frontline there. If RU builds up in Siberia and the Wallies jump in at the right places (France, Persia and Finnland seem the most promising here). Going int Morocco and Norway only is not going to cut it, both are defended with minimal efforts and don't provide you enough air fields to play your cards right.

My general advice is to play on and change sides if you think it is hopeless.. usually it isn't (and it definitely is not here).



TeaLeaf -> RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR (12/12/2017 11:43:45 AM)

Good point Brian [8D].
It's a good idea to set up some Nationalists in the north.
After it becomes clear that Mao will survive -or Japan does not come for him to start with, they can then rush south.

Obviously, Japan did not go after Mao, so I think the nationalists stayed North too long in this game. Perhaps set up a little too strong as well. What good will it do to save Mao at the cost of loosing the southern front.

I usually set up 2 to 3 units north that can rush south immediately when needed. The Nationalist CAV are good fast units for that. Ofc, they can't always escape... In my current game they got put OOS as well (I saw this coming but decided they had to stay) and I need to decide if I move them so they become easy prey (OOS and DG) but I can rebuild them, or leave them up in the mountains as speed bump.
Anyway, as long as they're trapped, they're just 2 units not being able to help Chiang, not 6 [;)].



jjdenver -> RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR (12/12/2017 12:33:19 PM)

Some thoughts on brian and dabrion's posts. First though let me say I know of 5 or 6 WIF players who I am sure are better than me and Dabrion and Brian are 2 of them. So take my thoughts here with that in mind.

@Dabrion: Allies did try to invade France twice and got kicked back out. They also invaded Portugal. Each time they invaded there was a rapid and powerful response from Axis to kick them back with losses. I think this is why Allies were pushed to the periphery (Norway & Morocco). They wanted to get something ashore that would "stick" and avoid being pushed into the sea for the 4th time. I agree that Finland would be a good target. I don't agree that France and Persia are. France because it's open country and Germany is likely to just blitz them off again....although perhaps now with longer ranged air the allies could manage to hold a beach head, not 100% sure. But it is only 43 and I think it's a hard go for allies to stay ashore in France in 43. Persia would be extremely difficult since Italy and Japan could interdict units and supplies going into that area. Euro Axis are about to own the Red Sea and Japan already almost owns Arabian Sea I think. Denmark looked open for an invasion and getting into the Baltic would give the allies options to go after Finland, Baltic States, etc. So I don't see the attack on Norway as a loser. The big problem is the urgency created by a collapsing SU. I think the game is hopeless for allies now that Caucasus is lost and Turkey is in.

@brian: I'm not sure I agree with your analysis that attacking Chicom early is the way to go. I agree that Natchi need to provide some small buffer for Chicom on turn 1. However, if JP goes after the Natchi south on turn 1 they can make great gains. It's going to be good weather in N Monsoon for many months while in N Temperate weather is likely to turn bad. For example I'm playing in a game now that is nearing end of MA 40 and there have been a total of 2 clear impulses for Axis in N Temperate all game long. If JP goes hard in N Monsoon they can take Changsha and use that resource, they can ZOC the rail lines for another resource. They can really blast the Natchi in favorable weather for many turns before weather turns sour and stand a real chance of breaking through their defense entirely. Also while attacking in N Monsoon they can leave part of their forces on the weather zone border line and shift focus from impulse to impulse between N Monsoon and N Temperate. I understand that Chicom become strong and don't have attack weakness but if NatChi can be knocked out through fall of Chungking/Chengtu, I don't think Chicom is worth worrying about very much. When we look at what would happen in the first 4 turns of a game where JP goes after Chicom facing bad weather, a buffer of 2-4 Natchi units, and a very strong defensive position around Sian, I don't see a high probability of a good outcome. Compare this to what can happen in first 4 months if Umezu leads an attack around Changsha and Yamamoto leads an attack from Canton and I think the probability of achieving a lot is much greater and it's very likely that Natchi can be mortally wounded, enough to give JP a good probability of conquering China by around the time of US entry. Of course some lucky attack rolls can make either strategy work but I think going after Chicom really is counting on lucky weather and lucky attack rolls near Sian. 1 Note is that I think most of my games have used a house rule that simulates isolated reorg. If a unit in China (only China) is isolated and flipped then unflipped during reorg at end of turn - that unit has to try to make its way back to its own lines, not continue to march into enemy territory. This ensures that a JP corp won't just march around the Chicom and go take Lan Chow and the resource there. If not using any isolated reorg at all it's easier for JP vs Chicom since they can flank them easily by marching through the desert over the course of a few turns even if isolated.




brian brian -> RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR (12/12/2017 1:55:42 PM)

China in 1939 is in a similar position to Russia in 1941. The more they try to hold ‘the front’, the faster they lose their army. Their goal should be preserving their army, not holding ‘the front’, which will fail - and they will steadily lose their army. They should retreat some and often pick the Blitz table in combat; a ‘half-flip’ result will often end Japan’s ability to attack the next impulse. China has some space to trade for time - space they are going to lose anyway; if China loses space AND units a downward spiral begins. But the allure of getting the Japanese to roll a ‘magic 14’ on the Assault table is usually too strong. As in Russia, there are certain parts of the map worth fighting for, and some that are not.

An astute Japanese attack is along the weather line, to take advantage of the changes in the North Monsoon zone. Sep/Oct is Fine weather 60% of the time in the north and the south of China, and the first turn can be devastating. If the weather is bad in the north it is also bad in the south and if a drive on Si-An doesn’t work out many of the forces involved can quickly be on the Chang-sha front for the winter turns.



Courtenay -> RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR (12/13/2017 2:16:53 PM)

Looking at all the after action reports, my impression is that a successful Japanese China campaign usually starts against the Communists, while initial attacks in the South usually bog down.



ashkpa -> RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR (12/14/2017 6:18:54 AM)

So, China. The Chinese set up was heavily focused up North. As Japan, I saw the possibility of making more progress in the south, especially with the better weather coming in winter. Now, what helped a lot was that in the first winter the turns were long and the Japanese were able to make significant progress (terrible weather in the N. Temperate for the Euro Axis, but perfect weather and turn length for the Japanese against the Nationalist). Also, believe there were too many single stack hexes that helped the Japanese. This at least is how I remember it.



Centuur -> RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR (12/14/2017 7:24:39 PM)

One unit a hex is no defense at all for the Chinese. One should defend with double stacks in cities and mountain hexes. Of course, that is no guarantee against a conquest of China, but it makes it far more difficult for the Japanese.

At start I like to put a stack in the most northern NatChi city, to aid the Communists which are vulnerable in the first turn of the game (if the weather stays fine).

Some screening units (MIL of cities taken by the Japanese, since if they are destroyed, the Chinese can't rebuild them. I want them on the map as long as possible) are put in the South to prevent fast Japanese INF units from moving out of Canton or Hainan towards the Chinese heartland. Chang with the best he's got goes in the Chang-sha area, where the Japanaese might decide to attack, since that's a route a lot of players take when dealing with the Chinese.



Grotius -> RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR (12/15/2017 2:55:13 AM)

I'm now reading the AAR from the very start, and I'm finding it very educational. One question: early on people advised Ronnie not to set up his Belgian units in Brussels, since his unit just to the east of Brussels would prevent the Axis from taking it in one impulse anyway. But what's the advantage of setting up a hex west of Brussels rather than in Brussels itself?

Also, one person suggested that Ronnie not set up the Bearn in Marseilles, given that there was Italian air within range that might attempt a port attack. Is there a better alternative for Bearn?

Edit: Also, while we're talking about China: playing Japan solo, I never seem to make much progress. If the weather turns bad, half my army has supply trouble. My solitaire games always seem to end up in stalemate in China. I'm reading this part of the AAR with particular interest.



brian brian -> RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR (12/15/2017 4:41:20 AM)

re: the Bearn - there is of course a special US Entry Option just for that unit - it is commonly interned by the USA, which gives them either a free TRS unit or the chance to build it from their Construction Pool. It's not a bad play to have the Bearn at Pearl Harbor, and later it makes a good escort CV for the main US Battleship Fleet in the Pacific as they both have the same speed.

but really the USA is hardly a poor Major Power, and the Allies have the option of using the Bearn for a few turns. If the Axis are invading French North Africa which could indicate various nefarious anti-CW strategies by the Axis, the West Med sea zone will be a perpetual battleground and the Bearn can help there while France is still fighting, particularly if they drew the nifty American CV plane with a range of 4, which then gives the Bearn an extra sea box # if playing with the CV Searching optional.

Other games, the Italians take little interest in tangling with the Royal Navy turn after turn, while they build airplanes for Mordor.

If my French forces were surprise Port Struck by the Italians I would be flattered. Particularly if they went for a hex with the CV rather than the TRS. This might could lead France to set up it's fleet in Oran where it would be an exciting Italian play to invade on the surprise impulse, but I think such an opportunity would be rare indeed. I confess, though, that I have calculated the odds for the Italians to land 3 divisions on Marseilles on a surprise impulse - now that would be an exciting roll of the dice if the French Fleet were still in port.

and lastly there could be a thought that letting the Bearn be hit in port might land it in the Repair Pool, where the French will never spend a BP, but this might give the Axis a chance to get it when they (usually) inevitably collapse Vichy France. But if the Italians were to do that, I would say as the Allies - go ahead and spend 5 BP on essentially a somewhat poor NAV when Italy probably has some pressing needs for infantry, and the Germans will very rarely ever have the action limits to operate a ship in the Mediterranean anyway.

so many wrinkles of game play decisions around just one counter. but CVs do rather focus player attention in the game.



rkr1958 -> RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR (12/15/2017 12:57:18 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Grotius
Also, while we're talking about China: playing Japan solo, I never seem to make much progress. If the weather turns bad, half my army has supply trouble. My solitaire games always seem to end up in stalemate in China. I'm reading this part of the AAR with particular interest.
So, I'm also in another game and AAR at the moment (Axis PBEM AAR (MIRROR) by jjdenver). However, I've agreed with Johnny to stay out so he can discuss strategy and plans also. I don't know if he's identified me as his allied opponent or not, but it's ok, I am. Now why I bring us this up is because I feel that I've messed China up again. It's early, but in the south he's already made much more progress that I would have liked. So, I believe this (other) AAR is another example of how a skilled WiF player can wreak havoc on China in MWiF.

P.S. Since I not visiting the (other) AAR, I don't know how much he's posted about his current exploits in China ...



Grotius -> RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR (12/15/2017 3:12:59 PM)

Thanks for your reply, Ronnie. I'll go check out his AAR to learn more (without spilling any details to you!). And yes, I'm still reading this AAR to learn more. Your AAR reports are wonderful -- well-written and clear, fun to read. You're a much better player than I am.

Did your Japanese opponents have good weather? When I play Japan, I can't figure how to get inland in China, especially in the south, without incurring supply trouble. Once one is out of supply in MWIF, one can't do much of anything.




TeaLeaf -> RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR (12/15/2017 5:34:13 PM)

I think you're not the only one who doesn't get very far in China, Grotius.
If China plays it right, and has roughly the same luck as Japan, Japanese attacks on Chinese stacks should very rarely exeed a +6 bonus on the 2D10 CRT (Mountains! Rivers! Even Mountains behind rivers! [:D]).

With odds like that, you'd expect Japan to not get very far most of the time...
Ofc this requires a minimum of 2 units in each hex that the Chinese defend. Preferrably hexes that doesn't need to be retreated the minute Japanese come hugging them [;)]. I know it sounds easier than it is, but that is where you should start, when learning to defend China.

But there is always the chance of a Japan that doesn't build ships. Just land units and airplanes and maybe a ship here or there. Well, I've never seen that, but I can imagine such a thing would be too much for the Chinese.



Centuur -> RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR (12/15/2017 5:49:33 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Grotius

I'm now reading the AAR from the very start, and I'm finding it very educational. One question: early on people advised Ronnie not to set up his Belgian units in Brussels, since his unit just to the east of Brussels would prevent the Axis from taking it in one impulse anyway. But what's the advantage of setting up a hex west of Brussels rather than in Brussels itself?



Look carefully at the map of Belgium. If the Netherlands are not controlled by Germany the moment they attack Belgium, one should place the Belgian CAV in Liège, blocking any movement by Germany towards Brussels due to the ZOC. During the surprise impulse, it's possible for Germany to attack both Brussels and Liège, thus eliminating the Belgian army and crossing the River Dyle.

If you place the other two Belgian units west of Brussels, Germany isn't able to enter the city during the surprise impulse because you cannot attack an empty hex (except by Paradropping on it, but there wasn't a PARA available to Germany at that time).

So next impulse, the French and CW send forces into Belgium and together with the Belgians enter both Antwerp and Brussels and are digging in behind a very nice river line in cities. That's the best defensive line for the Allies in early war.




Page: <<   < prev  99 100 101 [102] 103   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.875