RE: Bob Flemin's MWIF AARse

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: Bob Flemin's MWIF AARse

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> After Action Report >> RE: Bob Flemin's MWIF AARse

Page: << < prev 26 27 28 29 [30]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Bob Flemin's MWIF AARse - 12/11/2013 6:11:04 PM

brian brian

Posts: 3191
Joined: 11/16/2005
Status: offline

Well, I can understand your frustrations so far. Two things to consider:

If the production bugs make the oil rule this difficult, the easy fix is to play without it. In that case, you might want to add the Food in Flames option, so at least the CW gets a few extra production points each turn. Though it appears bugs could impact that one some too, unfortunately. An essential problem with turning all oil into Build Points is that only the Axis get extra BPs, for the most part. The Axis countries are resource limited far more than the Allies, who can maximize their production, use their oil units frequently, and still save up some oil, through large portions of the game. Also without the ability to store oil and use it in their factories later, the Russians are in a bit of a tighter spot as well, in a strong Axis 1941 Barbarossa situation. Food in Flames would help only some, as the Axis will be a lot, lot stronger. In a solitaire, no-oil game, I would consider anti-CW strategies as the Germans a bit more. Without an oil rule, an experienced Axis player could quite easily crush the Russians; even a very, very good Russian player. I think.

I have played with the Limited Overseas Supply option for a long long time. I like it because it makes the players fight to control the sea. Sure, without it you have to fight at sea as well, but being forced to protect supply shipping makes for a far more interesting game in the sea zones, in my opinion. A lot of people that play this game think the sea zones are just there to figure out where the tanks are going to land however. I'm not sure how the Italy/German sea supply issues are working out however, so that might be a no-go in a Mediterranean game.

Perhaps some people don't like it because it seems you have to use Convoy Points in the 0 box for that supply. A trick to consider when the action gets heavy at sea is to use your transports to keep supply open, robustly escorted with a single strong task force in the 3 box.... a risk for your precious transport, yes.

For the choice of combat tables, I suggest some run throughs of the Barbarossa scenario. Which frees the players from lots of the last few bugs crawling around in the game. Just ignore the ships completely (no port strikes), and get into the nuts and bolts of corps-level WWII combined arms combat, rather than figuring out which menu that one part of the game is run from.

Anyhow, thanks as usual for all you bring us, especially those of us who know they can't quite purchase yet, or else nothing whatsoever would be accomplished at a very busy time of year... wrapping up a major work project tomorrow I think .... hmmmm .....

(in reply to Klydon)

Post #: 871

RE: Bob Flemin's MWIF AARse - 12/11/2013 6:22:54 PM

WarHunter

Posts: 1207
Joined: 3/21/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

The following is a subjective list of options to be considered as essential. IMHO
Cruisers in Flames,
Truthfully, Warspite1, whatever you're happy with, is what counts.

warspite1

WHAT!!!!!! WarHunter, I normally value your sage advice, but that comment is worrying - are you ill?? I am NOT playing without the likes of Penelope, Arethusa, Ajax or Coventry! No sir, never!!

I fixed that quote for you.
Penelope, Arethusa, Ajax or Coventry are in.

My mistake for not thinking the option choices through. Considering all the hours you have put in for the naval write-ups. WTH was i thinking!!! sorry

_____________________________

�We never felt like we were losing until we were actually dead.�
Marcus Luttrell

(in reply to warspite1)

Post #: 872

RE: Bob Flemin's MWIF AARse - 12/11/2013 6:28:15 PM

WarHunter

Posts: 1207
Joined: 3/21/2004
Status: offline

Chinese attack weakness

Currently i lean against using it. There is not enough of a consensus to say China is op enough to use the rule. Using the option undercuts any observed reasons for using it.

If using the rule makes Japan attack the USSR more often, then its a bad rule.

The decision to attack the USSR with Japan should be one of the most pivotal choices in the game. It should not be connected with the use of an option. It should be based on the players choice of risk and gamble.

Currently i dont use the rule. Even if i play Japan, i want to be tested with the full weight of arms not half. From the crucible of Asia will come forth new doctrine. But it can only come from full measures not half-steps.

Anyone with some playing time using or not using this option should add their observations.

_____________________________

�We never felt like we were losing until we were actually dead.�
Marcus Luttrell

(in reply to Klydon)

Post #: 873

RE: Bob Flemin's MWIF AARse - 12/11/2013 6:50:26 PM

brian brian

Posts: 3191
Joined: 11/16/2005
Status: offline

I would suggest also reading up on the War in China some, the most mysterious part of WWII for most people. Chinese Attack Weakness is another rule used in the interests of realism. The historical Chinese were nothing like the World in Flames Chinese, and Japan will struggle on this new map if the Chinese know how to play the game. The 'full weight' of Chinese arms is WiF is many multiples of weight more than in history, in my opinion.

(in reply to WarHunter)

Post #: 874

RE: Bob Flemin's MWIF AARse - 12/11/2013 7:09:28 PM

WarHunter

Posts: 1207
Joined: 3/21/2004
Status: offline

When WiF 1st came out a Chinese attack weakness option was not included. It came later.

With the changes in the size of Asia, we should look at all aspects of the simulation without dilution. I do my part by not using it. Others by using it.

I should also use it in a game, as others should not. At least to give time for both sides to be measured.

I'm very interested in what people are experiencing on the Asian map.

My problem with using the rule is that we don't truly know if it should be considered a main staple option yet. Yes, the war in China is mysterious. Reading about that history is a good thing to expand one's war mind. I wonder how many players from China currently play and what they think of the option, based on their knowledge of the war.

_____________________________

�We never felt like we were losing until we were actually dead.�
Marcus Luttrell

(in reply to brian brian)

Post #: 875

RE: Bob Flemin's MWIF AARse - 12/11/2013 8:37:31 PM

Klydon

Posts: 2251
Joined: 11/28/2010
Status: offline

Sort of sidetracked this fine AAR, but I have been playing with the weakness and perhaps it is my own newbness to the newer style of game, but I just don't see where Japan can afford to have a run at Russia in 1939 and probably 1940 as well. There simply isn't enough quality units to get the job done against even a not very good Russian defense to the point where the Russian will essentially decide to give up on the Pacific map and pack it in.

From my own experimentations so far, I find the Japanese can sort of mass up enough to make some noise in the south with Yamamato and the home island troops. Even with that, the Japanese will be hard pressed up north just for units to cover the front line to the point it doesn't look like Swiss cheese. I now typically yank the motorized infantry and HQ from up north if it looks like the Russians are not going to make a early push themselves (and so far, they have declined to do so despite the excellent Siberian units and Zhukov simply because they have to go so far to get anywhere meaningful along with the fact they don't have the rail cap or extra HQ to help out). Even with all this, it is really hard going against the Chinese to really get good attacks on them. Attacking at low odds in WiF is just asking for attrition the Japanese (who are very short on land units already) just can't take. What I find happens is the Chi-coms grow pretty quickly to become a very nasty force in the north and which are very capable of launching good attacks on even the better Japanese units or at least putting pressure on them to retreat while the Japanese have issues trying to mass enough troops to launch counter attacks.

My next game may well be to leave Canton on its own and pour all the troops into northern China and see what happens that way. The Chinese can't afford to totally abandon watching Canton or the Japanese will land a extra unit or two there to go on walk about around the Chinese country side.

(in reply to WarHunter)

Post #: 876

RE: Bob Flemin's MWIF AARse - 12/11/2013 10:09:57 PM

Shannon V. OKeets

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: WarHunter

When WiF 1st came out a Chinese attack weakness option was not included. It came later.

With the changes in the size of Asia, we should look at all aspects of the simulation without dilution. I do my part by not using it. Others by using it.

I should also use it in a game, as others should not. At least to give time for both sides to be measured.

I'm very interested in what people are experiencing on the Asian map.

My problem with using the rule is that we don't truly know if it should be considered a main staple option yet. Yes, the war in China is mysterious. Reading about that history is a good thing to expand one's war mind. I wonder how many players from China currently play and what they think of the option, based on their knowledge of the war.

The writeups on the Chinese units were done by someone from China, referencing Chinese texts. I found them to be interesting.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to WarHunter)

Post #: 877

RE: Bob Flemin's MWIF AARse - 12/12/2013 4:52:58 AM

WarHunter

Posts: 1207
Joined: 3/21/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
The writeups on the Chinese units were done by someone from China, referencing Chinese texts. I found them to be interesting.

Thanks for the heads up. They are informative write ups worth the read.

While a fix is on the way to continue Warspite1's AAR. We are just keeping his thread warm.

So Thanks everyone for the spirited conversation we have been having. It warms my heart.

_____________________________

�We never felt like we were losing until we were actually dead.�
Marcus Luttrell

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 878

RE: Bob Flemin's MWIF AARse - 12/12/2013 6:29:07 PM

warspite1

Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

I'm hoping to get the game underway at the weekend. I have a saved game from early in the previous turn. This will take a while to work through - a load of impulses - but better than the alternative.

The carrier aircraft are still a problem but I think if I fly them off the carriers in the air re-base phase they may disappear. That's the hope anyway!

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

(in reply to WarHunter)

Post #: 879

RE: Bob Flemin's MWIF AARse - 12/12/2013 9:20:08 PM

Klydon

Posts: 2251
Joined: 11/28/2010
Status: offline

If you have not tried, maybe take a crack at the auto saves. This is how I have been able to resume games a lot closer to where I ran into issues.

(in reply to warspite1)

Post #: 880

RE: Bob Flemin's MWIF AARse - 12/13/2013 1:16:08 PM

Schnaufer

Posts: 31
Joined: 11/21/2010
Status: offline

Sail on mighty Warspite1 !

Have a good one all

(in reply to Klydon)

Post #: 881

RE: Bob Flemin's MWIF AARse - 12/14/2013 3:55:35 AM

WarHunter

Posts: 1207
Joined: 3/21/2004
Status: offline

Drinks for everyone while we wait.

_____________________________

�We never felt like we were losing until we were actually dead.�
Marcus Luttrell

(in reply to Schnaufer)

Post #: 882

RE: Bob Flemin's MWIF AARse - 12/14/2013 9:45:08 AM

warspite1

Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

Right, I'm going to bring this to an end - there were just too many impulses to try and re-create, the weather, the initiative, the US Entry - just too much going on. The odd difference in unit would not matter, but with each change so the two versions were getting further and further away.

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

(in reply to WarHunter)

Post #: 883

RE: Bob Flemin's MWIF AARse - 12/14/2013 11:34:45 AM

Walker84

Posts: 850
Joined: 7/5/2009
Status: offline

Sir, you are being highly stoic under the circumstances as clearly a goodly amount of time was invested prior to the restart. Best wishes with your version 2 AARse!

_____________________________

The most advanced nations are always those who navigate the most -
Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803 -1882)

(in reply to warspite1)

Post #: 884

RE: Bob Flemin's MWIF AARse - 12/14/2013 11:49:56 AM

warspite1

Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Walker84

Sir, you are being highly stoic under the circumstances as clearly a goodly amount of time was invested prior to the restart. Best wishes with your version 2 AARse!

warspite1

[Best Melchett voice] Thank-you sir - no point blubbing like a girl, what?

I just hope I can get further with this next one...

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

(in reply to Walker84)

Post #: 885

RE: Bob Flemin's MWIF AARse - 12/14/2013 2:25:29 PM

brian brian

Posts: 3191
Joined: 11/16/2005
Status: offline

Rally Phase!

edit - err, nevermind, after clicking along to the next channel on my World in Flames TV package....

Thanks!

< Message edited by brian brian -- 12/14/2013 3:28:20 PM >

(in reply to warspite1)

Post #: 886

RE: Bob Flemin's MWIF AARse - 12/14/2013 4:16:22 PM

Zorachus99