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: An Attempt to use MWiF to Simulated WW2 Reasonably Historically

 
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: An Attempt to use MWiF to Simulated WW2 Reasonably Historically Page: <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: An Attempt to use MWiF to Simulated WW2 Reasonably ... - 3/17/2018 10:16:04 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline 		Turn 2. Mar/Apr 1940. Axis #3. Germany Invades Belgium.




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by rkr1958 -- 3/17/2018 10:19:53 PM >

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 181
RE: An Attempt to use MWiF to Simulated WW2 Reasonably ... - 3/17/2018 10:30:49 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline 		Turn 4. Mar/Apr 1940. Axis #7.

The Germans finish off the Belgium army, capture Brussels and breach the Maginot line at Strasbourg. Ironically, the French Battleship Strasbourg was sunk earlier in the turn in the North Sea.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 182
RE: An Attempt to use MWiF to Simulated WW2 Reasonably ... - 3/17/2018 10:39:24 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline 		Turn 4. Mar/Apr 1940. Axis #7. German Reorg.

Most of the German ground units disorganized in taking Strasbourg are reorganized in a massive effort by Rundstedt and the Luftwaffe ATR squadron.




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by rkr1958 -- 3/17/2018 10:42:43 PM >

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 183
RE: An Attempt to use MWiF to Simulated WW2 Reasonably ... - 3/17/2018 10:40:18 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline 		Turn 4. Mar/Apr 1940. Axis #7. Northern China.

The IJA is trying to breakthrough in the mountains southeast of Sian held by a Natchi MIL army. The odds are decent and it's the Natchi call on CRT. They call blitz and make the right call. The Natchi army not only survives but retreats one hex west still blocking the mountains south(west) of Sian. If instead the assault CRT had been chosen the Natchi army would have been lost, and though all the Japanese attackers would have been disorganized, no IJA units still would have been lost and the mountains south of Sian would have been unblocked.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 184
RE: An Attempt to use MWiF to Simulated WW2 Reasonably ... - 3/17/2018 10:46:05 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline 		Turn 4. Mar/Apr 1940. Axis #9. Faeroes Gap.

Thinking that storms would protect German u-boats from the massive allied fleet operating in the Faeroes Gap, the entire German u-boat fleet is order to the Faeroes Gap to break supply to the Home Fleet and maybe sink a carrier.

Well, at least one sea battle went the allies way this turn. The German u-boats pay the price for their commanders folly.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 185
RE: An Attempt to use MWiF to Simulated WW2 Reasonably ... - 3/17/2018 10:58:38 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline 		Turn 4. Mar/Apr 1940. Axis #13. The Bold German Offensive.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 186
RE: An Attempt to use MWiF to Simulated WW2 Reasonably ... - 3/17/2018 11:01:32 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline 		Turn 4. Mar/Apr 1940. Axis #13. Germany's Land Combat.

The German army performs very well in both attacks. No units are lost, Rundstedt's panzers breakthrough, capture Lille, cutoff the most of the BEF and von Bock forces take Metz.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 187
RE: An Attempt to use MWiF to Simulated WW2 Reasonably ... - 3/17/2018 11:03:18 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline 		Turn 4. Mar/Apr 1940. End of Turn. Destroyed and Repair Pools.

The turn comes to an end right after the German attacks.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 188
RE: An Attempt to use MWiF to Simulated WW2 Reasonably ... - 3/17/2018 11:05:54 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline 		Turn 4. Mar/Apr 1940. End of Turn. US Entry Pool.

The USA chooses options:

(23) Freeze Japanese assets, 1 chit moved from entry to tension,

(19) Resources to USSR, no chit moved.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 189
RE: An Attempt to use MWiF to Simulated WW2 Reasonably ... - 3/17/2018 11:07:07 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline 		Turn 4. Mar/Apr 1940. End of Turn. Commander's Air, Land & Naval Logs.

In their raw and unedited form.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 190
RE: An Attempt to use MWiF to Simulated WW2 Reasonably ... - 3/17/2018 11:09:10 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline 		Turn 4. Mar/Apr 1940. End of Turn. Production Reports.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 191
RE: An Attempt to use MWiF to Simulated WW2 Reasonably ... - 3/17/2018 11:10:43 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline 		Turn 4. Mar/Apr 1940. End of Turn. Allied (CW & French) Detailed Convoy Report.

Again, unedited and raw.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 192
RE: An Attempt to use MWiF to Simulated WW2 Reasonably ... - 3/17/2018 11:11:58 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline 		Turn 5. May/June 1940. Trade.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 193
RE: An Attempt to use MWiF to Simulated WW2 Reasonably ... - 3/17/2018 11:12:33 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline 		Turn 5. May/June 1940. The Western Front.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 194
RE: An Attempt to use MWiF to Simulated WW2 Reasonably ... - 3/17/2018 11:13:02 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline 		Turn 5. May/June 1940. Southern France & Italy.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 195
RE: An Attempt to use MWiF to Simulated WW2 Reasonably ... - 3/17/2018 11:14:38 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline 		Turn 5. May/June 1940. Eastern Libya. Egypt.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 196
RE: An Attempt to use MWiF to Simulated WW2 Reasonably ... - 3/17/2018 11:16:19 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline 		Turn 5. May/June 1940. Manchuria. Korea.

Substantial Soviet and Japanese forces still staring eye to eye in the situation of an uneasy, and distrustful, peace.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 197
RE: An Attempt to use MWiF to Simulated WW2 Reasonably ... - 3/17/2018 11:16:51 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline 		Turn 5. May/June 1940. China.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 198
RE: An Attempt to use MWiF to Simulated WW2 Reasonably ... - 3/17/2018 11:39:44 PM   
Courtenay


Posts: 4003
Joined: 11/12/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

Turn 5. May/June 1940. Eastern Libya. Egypt.



In Palestine, I would move the TERR to Tel Aviv. As it is, on a surprise impulse Haifa has a defense of zero. With the TERR adjacent, at least it has a defense of one.

Also, I would strongly consider moving the TERR in Port Said one hex west, and detaching the INF XX in Dalmatia to other duties. This would give 1 point of defense to both Dalmatia and Port Said, and the CW never has enough INF XXs to spend them on passive defense. As the only units that can be moved by SCSs, they are far too useful, both as threats to make amphibious raids, and as fire brigades against unexpected threats. Also, they are always the lead troops in attacks. (They have to be the lead troops. Otherwise, why would they die so often? )

_____________________________

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

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 199
RE: An Attempt to use MWiF to Simulated WW2 Reasonably ... - 3/17/2018 11:41:33 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Courtenay


quote:

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

Turn 5. May/June 1940. Eastern Libya. Egypt.



In Palestine, I would move the TERR to Tel Aviv. As it is, on a surprise impulse Haifa has a defense of zero. With the TERR adjacent, at least it has a defense of one.

Also, I would strongly consider moving the TERR in Port Said one hex west, and detaching the INF XX in Dalmatia to other duties. This would give 1 point of defense to both Dalmatia and Port Said, and the CW never has enough INF XXs to spend them on passive defense. As the only units that can be moved by SCSs, they are far too useful, both as threats to make amphibious raids, and as fire brigades against unexpected threats. Also, they are always the lead troops in attacks. (They have to be the lead troops. Otherwise, why would they die so often? )
Good point ... will do. The British high command thanks you.


_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to Courtenay)
Post #: 200
RE: An Attempt to use MWiF to Simulated WW2 Reasonably ... - 3/18/2018 3:23:43 PM   
tverse

 

Posts: 346
Joined: 10/10/2016
Status: offline 		I noticed you use ground support more than ground strike in your offensive attacks. Do you have guidelines that you use to determine when one is better than the other?

Also your CRT calculator, I assume that is your own tool and not part of the game?

< Message edited by tverse -- 3/18/2018 3:26:35 PM >

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 201
RE: An Attempt to use MWiF to Simulated WW2 Reasonably ... - 3/18/2018 4:58:01 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tverse

I noticed you use ground support more than ground strike in your offensive attacks. Do you have guidelines that you use to determine when one is better than the other?
I haven't any explicit guidelines but I do go through some calculations to make a determination whether or not to use the air for ground strike or ground support. Let me illustrate with a few examples.

(1) 4-3 infantry in clear terrain with fair weather and LND with 2 tactical factors. The probability of disorganizing that unit is 0.2. Specifically there's a 20% chance you'll get +2 and 80% you'll get nothing. Now if you use those 2 factors for ground support, you get (2/4) x 2 = +1 (guaranteed); so the choice is +2 w/20% chance or +1 w/100% chance. In this example I would go with the +1.

(2) 7-4, 6-4 infantry & 3-2 artillery, with 2 LNDs w/4 & 3 tactical factors. Now it isn't so clear. For estimated effectiveness of a ground strike I first calculate p0, which I call the probability that any given unit is disorganized. For this example, p0 = 1 - (0.6 x 0.7) = 0.52. I then calculate the expected odds modifier for a ground strike, which is 0.52 x (+5) = +2.6. The +5 comes from +2 for each infantry corps and +1 for the division. In actuality, there's a 14% chance that both planes will not disorganized any unit, which means that there's a 86% chance they'll get at least +1. Now for ground support the odds modifier (again 100%) is (7/15) x 2 = +0.933. So, for ground strike the expected is +2.6, with an 84% you'll get at least +1, versus ground support which gives +0.933 at 100%. For this example I would choose ground strike.

(3) Now my favorite, you have a 4-3 and 3-3 stacked together in a surprise impulse with two LND's and tactical factors of 4 and 3. For the surprise impulse, p0 = 1 - (0.6*0.6*0.7*0.7) = 0.8236. The expected yield from a ground strike is 0.8236 x (+4) = +3.29, with a 68% chance of getting +4, 29% of +2 ,3% of 0, seems like a no brainier doesn't it? However, if you use those same factors for ground support (during the surprise impulse in which they're doubled), the 100% guarantee odds modifier is ((7x2)/7) x 2 = +4. That is, 100% that you'll get the +4. So, ground support is the best option for this example.

(4) Same example as (3) except the two units are in the mountains. The ground strike calculation remains the same; i.e., +3.29 expected, 68% +4, 29% +2 and 3% 0. However, because of the mountains the defense factors are doubled thus the ground support calculation is ((7x2)/(7x2)) x +2 = +2. For a ground strike with a 97% chance of getting +2 or higher and a 68% chance of getting a +4, I would go with the ground strike in this case.

Hope these examples help.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tverse
Also your CRT calculator, I assume that is your own tool and not part of the game?
I've attached it to this post and you're welcome to it. It's an excel spreadsheet.



Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to tverse)
Post #: 202
RE: An Attempt to use MWiF to Simulated WW2 Reasonably ... - 3/18/2018 7:45:35 PM   
tverse

 

Posts: 346
Joined: 10/10/2016
Status: offline 		Ronnie thanks for the calculator ...I like using it especially on defensive side in helping to decide assault vs blitz.

I followed your logic on the discussion of ground support vs ground strike, however I did not understand the calculation of the ground support such as example 1. Why is (2/4) x 2? Why the doubling? I assume 2/4 is 2 air tactical to 4 defense, if so why is this doubled?

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 203
RE: An Attempt to use MWiF to Simulated WW2 Reasonably ... - 3/18/2018 8:46:58 PM   
cfinch

 

Posts: 87
Joined: 6/9/2016
Status: offline 		the unit is strength 4, air factor adds 2 to the combat strength which is 50% of the defense. if you had 4 to 4 it is +2, 2 to 4 is +1. So 2/4 = .5 x 2 = 1 or +1. If it had been 1 air factor then 1/4 = .25 x2 = + 0.5 (which may or may not make a difference along the way).

with more air factors this is a useful shortcut - 6 air to 4 is 3/2 or 1.5 x2 = +3. For fractions say 3 air to 4 defense you get 0.75 x2 = +1.5...

hope that helps

(in reply to tverse)
Post #: 204
RE: An Attempt to use MWiF to Simulated WW2 Reasonably ... - 3/19/2018 12:18:39 AM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

If you are ever interested in expanding your WWII reading material outside of a solely US focus then this excellent book is as good a place to start as any. This is especially pertinent given Pacific War to come.

Here is a short review I did for Amazon. Suffice to say this book got 5 stars.


Where? What?

Nomonhan is a little known military action fought by the Russian and Japanese Empires in the last months before the outbreak of World War II.

It was in fact only one of a number of battles and skirmishes (albeit by far the most important) that were fought by the two countries on the border of Russia and the Japanese occupied territory in Manchuria.

The author not only tells the story of the fighting that took place in this region, but also assesses the impact of the fighting and how this affected the decisions taken by Stalin and the Japanese government in the build up to World War II.

On the military side, the shortcomings of the Japanese armed forces in World War II can be plainly seen to have been in evidence in the way they conducted themselves before and during Nomonhan; the hot-headed Japanese officers and Gekokujo, the lack of sensible planning, the dismissive belief that the enemy was inferior, the inflexibility of Japanese operational plans - all were in evidence here.

This is a well written, interesting book and I thoroughly recommend it to anyone with an interest in World War II.




Just bought this book for my nook. Just setting down with this book, some spaghetti w/meat sauce, salad and one or two beers. Life is good.

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 205
RE: An Attempt to use MWiF to Simulated WW2 Reasonably ... - 3/19/2018 5:00:05 AM   
brian brian

 

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

ORIGINAL: tverse

Ronnie thanks for the calculator ...I like using it especially on defensive side in helping to decide assault vs blitz.

I followed your logic on the discussion of ground support vs ground strike, however I did not understand the calculation of the ground support such as example 1. Why is (2/4) x 2? Why the doubling? I assume 2/4 is 2 air tactical to 4 defense, if so why is this doubled?


To think about the 2d10 Combat Results Table in terms of an ordinary odds level CRT, start by thinking a 1:1 attack is a +2 attack. 2:1 is +4, 3:1 is +6, etc.

So if you attack a 4 strength defender with a 4 strength attacker, you have a 1:1 attack, or a +2. If you add 2 factors of Ground Support from an aircraft or ART unit, now you have a 6:4 attack, which is 3:2, or 1.5:1 == a +3 attack on 2d10.

A good rule of thumb in deciding to use an aircraft for a Ground Strike or Ground Support is the # of defending units in the hex. Against a single unit, Ground Support is almost always better. Even with a choice 6 factor Stuka - sending it as Ground Support is generally going to be the same as adding an odds level to the attack.

Against a defending stack, Ground Strike might be the better choice. Each disorganized unit gets the attacker a +1 on the 1d10 table, or +2 on 2d10 - which is identical to raising one odds level. A +1 on the 1d10 table is nearly identical; to see this, compare the results from 1-10 for any odds level on the CRT, with the results from 2-11 on the next odds level up.

So with a 6 factor Stuka, there is a good chance you can disorganize 2 units with a Ground Strike, and gain 2 odds levels with 2 good dice. Sending a 6 factor Stuka as Ground Support vs 2 defending units is most likely going to gain you only part of one odds level, as 6 factors vs, say, a stack of 10 defense is only 0.6 of an odds level.

(in reply to tverse)
Post #: 206
RE: An Attempt to use MWiF to Simulated WW2 Reasonably ... - 3/19/2018 5:14:20 AM   
warspite1


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

ORIGINAL: rkr1958


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

If you are ever interested in expanding your WWII reading material outside of a solely US focus then this excellent book is as good a place to start as any. This is especially pertinent given Pacific War to come.

Here is a short review I did for Amazon. Suffice to say this book got 5 stars.


Where? What?

Nomonhan is a little known military action fought by the Russian and Japanese Empires in the last months before the outbreak of World War II.

It was in fact only one of a number of battles and skirmishes (albeit by far the most important) that were fought by the two countries on the border of Russia and the Japanese occupied territory in Manchuria.

The author not only tells the story of the fighting that took place in this region, but also assesses the impact of the fighting and how this affected the decisions taken by Stalin and the Japanese government in the build up to World War II.

On the military side, the shortcomings of the Japanese armed forces in World War II can be plainly seen to have been in evidence in the way they conducted themselves before and during Nomonhan; the hot-headed Japanese officers and Gekokujo, the lack of sensible planning, the dismissive belief that the enemy was inferior, the inflexibility of Japanese operational plans - all were in evidence here.

This is a well written, interesting book and I thoroughly recommend it to anyone with an interest in World War II.




Just bought this book for my nook. Just setting down with this book, some spaghetti w/meat sauce, salad and one or two beers. Life is good.
warspite1

Enjoy - the book, the beers and the spaghetti!




_____________________________

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



(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 207
RE: An Attempt to use MWiF to Simulated WW2 Reasonably ... - 3/19/2018 9:34:59 AM   
tverse

 

Posts: 346
Joined: 10/10/2016
Status: offline 		Thanks all...this discussion has been helpful in evaluating how best to allocate air resources in an attack.

I think I understand the calculations even the multiplying by 2. My thinking was clouded by using the odds chart which puts a 1:2 odds at 0 die modifier so when I was working through the example of 2:4 I was getting a 0 and not a +1.

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 208
RE: An Attempt to use MWiF to Simulated WW2 Reasonably ... - 3/19/2018 8:33:59 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline 		Turn 5. May/June 1940. Trade.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to tverse)
Post #: 209
RE: An Attempt to use MWiF to Simulated WW2 Reasonably ... - 3/19/2018 8:36:24 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline 		Turn 5. May/June 1940. The Western Front (End of Last Turn to Post Reinforcements). Initiative.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 210
Page:   <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> After Action Report >> RE: An Attempt to use MWiF to Simulated WW2 Reasonably Historically Page: <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>
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

0.750