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: Global War Solitaire

 
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: Global War Solitaire Page: <<   < prev  18 19 20 21 [22]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Global War Solitaire - 1/2/2014 9:40:05 PM   
yvesp


Posts: 2083
Joined: 9/12/2008
Status: offline
In Kyoto...




Attachment (1)

(in reply to yvesp)
Post #: 631
RE: Global War Solitaire - 1/2/2014 9:40:44 PM   
yvesp


Posts: 2083
Joined: 9/12/2008
Status: offline
And in Osaka, where the bombs succeeds in eradicating two of the three defending armies...




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by yvesp -- 1/2/2014 10:42:20 PM >

(in reply to yvesp)
Post #: 632
RE: Global War Solitaire - 1/2/2014 11:07:35 PM   
yvesp


Posts: 2083
Joined: 9/12/2008
Status: offline
Eisenhower offensive in Kyoto meets with an expensive success.
But the city is captured.

Note, there was just before a combat in Batavia at +10 which I failed once more to screen-capture. It barely succeeded (roll of 9), but Batavia has nevertheless fallen into the American hands.




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by yvesp -- 1/3/2014 12:09:40 AM >

(in reply to yvesp)
Post #: 633
RE: Global War Solitaire - 1/2/2014 11:12:01 PM   
yvesp


Posts: 2083
Joined: 9/12/2008
Status: offline
And south of Kyoto, the city of Osaka, already heavily damaged by the previous bombing raid, falls too into the American hands. Being the last Japanese city, Japan is now conquered.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to yvesp)
Post #: 634
RE: Global War Solitaire - 1/2/2014 11:12:51 PM   
yvesp


Posts: 2083
Joined: 9/12/2008
Status: offline
The British surround Leipzig and paradrop. The city falls.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to yvesp)
Post #: 635
RE: Global War Solitaire - 1/2/2014 11:13:49 PM   
yvesp


Posts: 2083
Joined: 9/12/2008
Status: offline
And they do the same in Aachen, with the help of French and American troops.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to yvesp)
Post #: 636
RE: Global War Solitaire - 1/2/2014 11:15:05 PM   
yvesp


Posts: 2083
Joined: 9/12/2008
Status: offline
In Wollin, remaining German troops are disarmed...




Attachment (1)

(in reply to yvesp)
Post #: 637
RE: Global War Solitaire - 1/2/2014 11:15:51 PM   
yvesp


Posts: 2083
Joined: 9/12/2008
Status: offline
As is a long immobilized armored corps west of Vienna.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to yvesp)
Post #: 638
RE: Global War Solitaire - 1/2/2014 11:19:41 PM   
yvesp


Posts: 2083
Joined: 9/12/2008
Status: offline
A screenshot is hardly necessary: Japan has one army corps remaining in Japan, and some in China. None can do anything, having no supply source now.
Germany still as one city, and two corps, one in Rotterdam, long surrounded, another lost in Yugoslavia...
Italy still own Erythrea, Ethiopia, and Albania. It is the only country still possessing a Headquarter...

The three countries pass! But the turn doesn't end (20% chance)

Everybody passes but the USA which still have a forgotten combat to terminate (it should have been done in the previous impulse to avoid the risk of end of turn, and troops were ready ; I did not reload to declare the combat because I feared I would then be blocked as I was once before)... But then I don't use an offensive either.

< Message edited by yvesp -- 1/3/2014 12:24:16 AM >

(in reply to yvesp)
Post #: 639
RE: Global War Solitaire - 1/2/2014 11:27:55 PM   
yvesp


Posts: 2083
Joined: 9/12/2008
Status: offline
Stuttgart falls to the American offensive. So falls the last German city.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to yvesp)
Post #: 640
RE: Global War Solitaire - 1/2/2014 11:30:11 PM   
yvesp


Posts: 2083
Joined: 9/12/2008
Status: offline
And the turn conveniently stops on a roll of 1.

With luck, I might yet have conquered Siam, but in this part of the year, this was rather unlikely.

(in reply to yvesp)
Post #: 641
RE: Global War Solitaire - 1/2/2014 11:32:24 PM   
Courtenay


Posts: 4003
Joined: 11/12/2008
Status: offline
Congratulations on a great game.

_____________________________

I thought I knew how to play this game....

(in reply to yvesp)
Post #: 642
RE: Global War Solitaire - 1/2/2014 11:43:42 PM   
yvesp


Posts: 2083
Joined: 9/12/2008
Status: offline
And the winner is....

The Commonwealth.

But then the game is rigged there. In all likehood, considering the game itself, the Commonwelth should be the logical winner. It never lost territory, and conquered a large share of Germany. But China comes close, with the control of Shangai and Saigon. Much better than history!

But since the Commonwealth starts the game with the most objectives under its control, it will most often be the winner when the allies win...

The board game corrects this by the bidding system, which I find fairly good ; you can then even win with France or Italy...




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by yvesp -- 1/3/2014 12:46:16 AM >

(in reply to Courtenay)
Post #: 643
RE: Global War Solitaire - 1/3/2014 12:32:02 AM   
yvesp


Posts: 2083
Joined: 9/12/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Courtenay

Congratulations on a great game.


Thanks!

I like it very much. My first game in 13 years or so... But the end was hell!

Its the first time I win so clearly with the allies.

Indeed, the trouble was with Japan, from the very beginning.I had forgotten to be prudent as a fox : rash attacks almost led to early disaster, later recover through the complet building of the land unit pool. To my discharge, the change of scale makes for a rather different style of play, as I could experiment with the Chinese, which can be deadly without even firing a shot...

However, there were heavy losses on the Chinese front, and the Japanese could never build in time the required naval units for lack of resources, much less take the naval moves necessary to position itself against the USA. The net result is that it did build exceedingly few carriers.

Its air force was also pathetic (it is never good anyway.)

All of this combined to make the US war against Japan rather easy, at least until the American decided to invade: Japan had no interest to spoil its navy (it has never that interest : only the US benefits from an attrition war), but more to the point, the Americans could hardly be bothered since they were soon positionned too close to the heart of Japan. Japan was lucky that its merchant navy survived so well: in part it was because the USA were at first more interested by the European theater which promised to be difficult, especially because it was unsure that the Russians could enter.

So, Japan weakness allowed the USA to lean strongly to Europe ; this was especially blatant in the fight for the control of the West Mediterranean, which involved carriers some of which should have been positionned againt Japan (to set things right, in a different scenario, the US would likely have build more carriers, possibly in advance : it is unclear how that would have changed things.) More blatant was that this allowed the USA to take a lot of land actions when necessary, which is usually difficult if the Japanese positions its fleets at a crucial moment when Germany does something in Europe,or simply when the USA have to do combined actions to ensure the capture of some island without interference...

On the other side, I think I did a rather good job with the Commonwealth, which dealt very well with its sea lanes : nothing in the Mediterranean, nothing in the North Atlantic, and that offered a very small target (two close sea areas) for axis submarines. They were never seen as a serious threat. Germany could never bother to attempt an air assault on them, firts because it was very busy bringing the garrison in the east at the highest possible value, which involves having as many planes as possible on the fornt lines, and still keep a sufficient home air defense against strategic bombings. Second because the number and very soon, quality, of British fighters able to protect in the zero box was overwhelming. Commonwealth major production at the start of the game involved carriers and fighters... as well as lots of convoys. Through in the occasional land units to discourage an invasion, which was unlikely since the sole Germna amphibious was sent to repair from the onset. An error: the German fleet should have been deep in the Baltic, which I had also forgotten. Anyway, I know from experience that invasions of England are almost always failures, and at best a quite chancy business! England is usually really secure.

Germany was really thwarted about not being able to attack Russia in 1941. I had the maximum I could on the border! But not claiming Poland shortens the border. This may have incidences on the garrison ratio which I must study deeper. It also helped the USA enter much sonner than I expected into the war: if you don't claim Poland, why claim anything ? That's a lot of chits that are not put back... And Germany had not even attacked the Netherlands, and Italy was not in the war!

As for Italy, why enter the war, if it cannot help ? Seriously ? No merchant shipping to disrupt, no British ships to bother... conquer Egypt ? Why not. But troops can easily come from India or even Australia. British can easily disrupt supply in the East Mediterranean. And a fleet stationned in Aden is safe and can be problematic for any Italian fleet in the East Mediterranean. Not that nothing can be done, but it involves all sorts of prepartions (planes, transports) which are expensive (hence long) for the small Italian economy. And of course, this usually involves Germna troops, with preferably some panzers. But these were requested on the east front to increase the garrison ratio! For a war declaration that became possible only much too late!

Instead I did choose to play a little roleplaying game whereas Mussolini was keen on his "independance" from Hitler, and where he preferred to play alone in his own turf : Yugoslavia, Greece. Things can be said about that choice of course! And anyway, no Italian is interested in running the risk of meeting the French fleet. So, as long as France has not fallen (or near), entering the war doesn't look smart.


(in reply to Courtenay)
Post #: 644
RE: Global War Solitaire - 1/3/2014 5:31:43 AM   
yvesp


Posts: 2083
Joined: 9/12/2008
Status: offline
How Germany was shared between the allies.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to yvesp)
Post #: 645
RE: Global War Solitaire - 1/3/2014 5:32:57 AM   
yvesp


Posts: 2083
Joined: 9/12/2008
Status: offline
China reclaimed most of its territory before the end of the war.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to yvesp)
Post #: 646
RE: Global War Solitaire - 1/3/2014 5:38:06 AM   
yvesp


Posts: 2083
Joined: 9/12/2008
Status: offline
Germany: settled in Finland, which was untouched by the war. Had one land unit in Rotterdam, one in Yugoslavia.

Japan: settled in Siam (not very secure), still own Madagascar. Had 6 land units in China (surrounded), two in Port Arthur, 4 around Canton, one in Japan.

Italy: still in Albania, owns Erythrea, Ethiopia. Had two land units in Albania (including a headquarterà, one in Erythrea.



< Message edited by yvesp -- 1/3/2014 6:39:57 AM >

(in reply to yvesp)
Post #: 647
RE: Global War Solitaire - 1/3/2014 6:16:36 AM   
Finarfïn


Posts: 145
Joined: 12/23/2013
Status: offline
Great AAR !!
Hope you'll make another one soon :).

Fin

(in reply to yvesp)
Post #: 648
RE: Global War Solitaire - 1/3/2014 3:00:55 PM   
yvesp


Posts: 2083
Joined: 9/12/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Finarfïn

Great AAR !!
Hope you'll make another one soon :).

Fin


Thanks!

That's possible.
But certainly not before some bugs are resolved.
And I now want to play something else!

(in reply to Finarfïn)
Post #: 649
RE: Global War Solitaire - 1/3/2014 5:37:44 PM   
yvesp


Posts: 2083
Joined: 9/12/2008
Status: offline
Oh...

And I did not post that interesting resource route...
Things like this gave me lots of headaches...

But Steve knows.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to yvesp)
Post #: 650
RE: Global War Solitaire - 1/15/2014 1:51:38 PM   
brian brian

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: yvesp

East Front at the beginning of September 43






thank you for an outstanding AAR, and a very interesting example of the Axis going with the 'Sitzkrieg' strategy.

I have one question … why did you have the Germans pack units into the north-east prong of Polish territory? Any unit within 3 hexes of a Soviet border hexside will count for the garrison total, not just on a border hex. You definitely know this game well; just wondering if the pact rule is working correctly I guess.

(in reply to yvesp)
Post #: 651
RE: Global War Solitaire - 1/19/2014 7:19:25 PM   
yvesp


Posts: 2083
Joined: 9/12/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian

thank you for an outstanding AAR, and a very interesting example of the Axis going with the 'Sitzkrieg' strategy.

I have one question … why did you have the Germans pack units into the north-east prong of Polish territory? Any unit within 3 hexes of a Soviet border hexside will count for the garrison total, not just on a border hex. You definitely know this game well; just wondering if the pact rule is working correctly I guess.


Well,the Sitzkrieg startegy was imposed onme by the circumstances: in the East, Japans failure to correctly stabilize the Chinese front prevented any serious Pacific attack.
And Germany was thwarted by the ability of the Russians to (barely, but that was enough) garrison its front. Also note that the URSS failure to claim any territory was also extremely powerful: It accelerated the US entry in the war (at least two turns I believe), and it reduced even more the front line size and at the same time reduced the German garrison (no Finnish unit, no Rumanian unit) ; this is something I will definitely investigate in more depth.

Now for the specific answer, no, now the rules stipulate:

GARRISON VALUES
You only count the garrison values of your land and aircraft units (including those of your aligned minors) on the common border with the other major power. If you don’t have a common border, you can’t use garrison ratios to break the pact.


This is an extract from the Rules As Coded. But I think it is the same in the latest RAW. At start, I was like you: I believed any unit within three hexes counted, but that was an old rule.

At some point, I believe I'll do another AAR. But I'll wait for some more updates by Steve. I was really frustrated at times by some bugs. I know it's not Steve fault , but the game was rushed (well, sort of, after all these years! ) and it could have waited two or three more months more...

When I see some of the major bugs I sent to Steve corrected, I'll do it once more. I already know my next Axis strategy, I think (allies can't have a starting strategy because they are reacting.)

Yves

< Message edited by yvesp -- 1/19/2014 8:26:46 PM >

(in reply to brian brian)
Post #: 652
RE: Global War Solitaire - 1/20/2014 9:20:46 PM   
brian brian

 

Posts: 3191
Joined: 11/16/2005
Status: offline
well, the writing of the Rules as Written is a little tricky there. The expression "common border" is defined separately in a different paragraph. I would imagine MWiF keeps the same 3 hex rule.

If it doesn't that would be a huge wrenching change to the Nazi<>Soviet Pact mechanism….



I've never considered having the USSR not seize Eastern Poland and then reaping the US Entry rewards, but that is interesting. I guess if the US drew three "5" chits to start as it could in a very, very rare game of MWiF, I would consider it. Overall though I would be terrified as the USSR that Germany could draw those 5 chits instead and possibly break the pact in 1941.

I do like not seizing Bessarabia as the USSR. It forces the Axis to do something in the Balkans, which might not have been on their to-do list otherwise. It is a much more advantageous starting position for the Axis, sure, so you had better be ready for what's coming as the USSR when that German HQ-A parks there.

(in reply to yvesp)
Post #: 653
RE: Global War Solitaire - 1/20/2014 11:57:12 PM   
Courtenay


Posts: 4003
Joined: 11/12/2008
Status: offline
Checking my garrison ratios, common border is still the three hex distance. I move a Soviet unit three hexes away, and the garrison ration go up; move it four hexes away, and it goes down.

_____________________________

I thought I knew how to play this game....

(in reply to brian brian)
Post #: 654
RE: Global War Solitaire - 1/21/2014 4:39:59 PM   
yvesp


Posts: 2083
Joined: 9/12/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Courtenay

Checking my garrison ratios, common border is still the three hex distance. I move a Soviet unit three hexes away, and the garrison ration go up; move it four hexes away, and it goes down.


Hum, that's good to know.
When I played, it did not look like ratios where adjusting in the movement phase itself, so I felt it was a little tricky to adjust correctly, much less to experiment. But possibly too, I did not look hard enough. But I certainly did not do a scientific experiment. Still, I'm pretty sure that at some point I had Soviet units on the Bessarabian border, less than three hexes away from the common border, that were not accounted for ; which urged me to move them Northward... Possibly the rule implementation has holes ?

Yves

(in reply to Courtenay)
Post #: 655
RE: Global War Solitaire - 1/23/2014 12:51:14 PM   
brian brian

 

Posts: 3191
Joined: 11/16/2005
Status: offline
that could likely be because Rumania was still neutral at the time. the common border includes only hexes in active Major Powers &/or their aligned minors. While Rumania is somewhat always on the Axis 'side', when it is not active the border area there (Bessarabia), is not part of pact calculations.

I have made that mistake many, many times playing WiF, on each side of that border.

(in reply to yvesp)
Post #: 656
RE: Global War Solitaire - 1/24/2014 6:57:02 PM   
yvesp


Posts: 2083
Joined: 9/12/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian

that could likely be because Rumania was still neutral at the time. the common border includes only hexes in active Major Powers &/or their aligned minors. While Rumania is somewhat always on the Axis 'side', when it is not active the border area there (Bessarabia), is not part of pact calculations.

I have made that mistake many, many times playing WiF, on each side of that border.


I meant: along theRumanian border, but within three hexes from the Polish (German conquered) border.

(in reply to brian brian)
Post #: 657
Page:   <<   < prev  18 19 20 21 [22]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> After Action Report >> RE: Global War Solitaire Page: <<   < prev  18 19 20 21 [22]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.906