6-Player Friendly PBEM Global War

[rkr1958]

Optional Rules + Compulsory USSR-Japanese Peace

We've managed to gather six players who have agreed to a friendly game of MWiF. We will be playing the global war scenario. Suffice it to say that more than one of us was hesitant to play due primarily to their frustrations with MWiF’s production and convoy system; especially if playing the CW or USA. This hesitancy was overcame, or at least mitigated, by me agreeing to ensure full production though hook or crook (i.e., game file editing). As such I agreed to be the “game master” and handle the production for all major powers via instructions from the others. And if this wasn’t enough I also agreed to be this game’s “war correspondent”. That is, I will document our game in Powerpoint and in my Excel-based AAR template and post such in an AAR on the forum.

Getting Started.
Before assigning major powers to player we agreed to use https://www.pbegames.com/roller/ for our die rolls. The next thing we worked out through several iterations were the optional rules.

[rkr1958]

USSR Japan Compulsory Peace [RAW option 50 section 13.7.3]

In addition to those which we agreed to that are coded in MWiF, we also agreed to manually enforce, "USSR Japan Compulsory Peace" if necessary using the rules as written for Final Edition (FE) WiF (i.e., WiF 7).

[rkr1958]

Assignment of Major Powers to Players.

Finally, we had to decide how to assign major powers to players. There are 8 major powers at start and we have 6 players. We decided to use the WiF recommended allotment which assigns Germany, Italy, Japan, CW each to 1 of 4 players, France & USSR to the 5th and USA & China to the 6th. Implicit in the assignment of the USSR (& France) to a player 5 is also the CCP and in China (& USA) to a player 6 is only the Nationalist Chinese.

So after agreeing on how to divvy up the 8 major powers among our six player next came the question of who gets what? Do we bid? Well, if we were all experienced and competitive players then maybe so. But our 6 players ranged in experience from novice to above average and we're playing this as a friendly game. Note that our stated experience was self estimated so I'm afraid our above average player might be ringer. If so, I base hope that he's also agreed that this is to be a friendly game and will act more like a mentor and less like a steam roller.

So that still leaves the question of how to allocate the major powers to players. I recalled historical and game average objective data that's included with MWiF. I mentioned that to the team, agreed to import, plot that data in Excel and provide the plots to the rest of the team. After a bit of discussion we agreed to set the bids for each major power or power-pair based on the game average for the July-Aug 1945 turn (i.e., turn 36). Note that we did this even before assigning major powers to players.

We decided to randomly assign major powers to players, play the game and let the chips fall were they may. Our primary objective is to have fun, which includes the social aspect of interacting with ones side. But we all agree that one's side (i.e., axis or allied) is more important that one's major power winning. Though, if one can accomplish both that wouldn't be bad either. We will keep score.

As a personal objective, and one to which the others fully agreed, was that though this will be a "social" game I would like to compare and contrast the flow of our game to the historical at the corps and strategic level.

[rkr1958]

Turn 1. Sep/Oct 1939. Weather & Actions.

We started this game in early May and have managed to get through the first turn. Hopefully, that we've got a lot of the logistics worked out with coordination between 6 players we'll move faster. No guarantee though and I'll document each turn as we finish it.

By the way, it's not been an oversight that I haven't told you which major power (or power-pair) that I drew. I wish to keep it that way. In fact, I wish to keep the assignments and the other players that way too. That is, confidential. The team agreed to let me document our game in the style of a neutral observer though I'm one of six active participants. We'll see how that goes over time and hopefully I won't let slip any of the assignments.

As you shall see, and I think agree, the first turn was very active and entertaining. The turn was long (6 impulses each side) and the weather fine across the map for the first 5 impulse-pairs.

[rkr1958]

August 31, 1939. Germany.

The German player's setup appears driven by 5 goals:

(1) A quick and decisive 1-turn knockout of Poland. Germany setup the majority of his air and ground strength, including all 3 HQs, is setup on the Polish border.
(2) Minimize the incentive for the British and/or French to raid the Baltic on their initial (surprise) impulse. Germany has placed only 1 CP in the Baltic, which can provide supply but also which also places 1 CP at risk of being lost to a surprise raid into the Baltic by French and/or CW subs/SCSs.
(3) Distribute the KM SCSs and (remaining) CPs among major and a couple of minor ports to reduce the risk of surprise allied port strike. Note that the German player appears to have placed his most "valuable" naval assets out of range in the Prussian ports of Konigsberg and Memel. These include his Amph, TRS, 2 best BBs and 4 CPs.
(4) 2 unit stacks on the border with France (through setup & calling out the reserves) to significantly reduce the possibility of France pushing 4 units into Germany and being able to align Yugoslavia.
(5) If weather and surviving potential flips during the allied surprise impulse permits, have the forces necessary to secure Denmark on a invasion impulse, which requires gaining control of all Danish hexes that border the North Sea. Note that the optional rule "railway movement bonus" is NOT being used so crossing the strait to Frederikshavn will cost 5 MPs and not 4. The implication is that the German PzJag I div alone is unable to secure the 3-hex island that contains that port.

[rkr1958]

September 1, 1939.

It begins. Good luck to both sides, all players and all readers. My hope is that this friendly game remains friendly, fun and competitive. Also, I hope I learn a bit from both the more experienced player(s) and for you my readers.

[rkr1958]

Turn 1. Sep/Oct 1939. War Logs. Europe (Eastern & Western Fronts).

[rkr1958]

Turn 1. Sep/Oct 1939. Axis 03. Germany Invades Denmark.

[rkr1958]

Turn 1. Sep/Oct 1939. Axis 05. Poland, Denmark Smashed & Germany Mobilizing West.

[rkr1958]

Turn 1. Sep/Oct 1939. Axis 09. Germany Invades Holland.

[rkr1958]

Turn 1. Sep/Oct 1939 (fd=factory destruction). Western Front.

[rkr1958]

Turn 1. Sep/Oct 1939. War Logs. The Med.

[rkr1958]

Turn 1. Sep/Oct 1939 (fd). Italy/Italian Coast.

Of worth noting is that the Italian CCNN corps East of Nice was during setup broken down into two 1-3 inf divisions. During this turn, the Italian player used SCSs to transport each inf division to Italy and during the end of turn was able to recombine them into the CCNN corps.

[rkr1958]

Turn 1. Sep/Oct 1939 (fd). East Med/Libya/Egypt.

[rkr1958]

Turn 1. Sep/Oct 1939 (fd). West Med/West North Africa.

[rkr1958]

Turn 1. Sep/Oct 1939. Allied 06. USSR Invades Persia.

The Soviet player's Asian setup was obviously designed for a early (i.e., turn 1) invasion of Persia assuming fine weather and a successful claim on Bessarabia on an earlier impulse. The Soviet player got both. That is, a successful (i.e., allowed) claim on Bessarabia and a chance to rebase his air force away from the Romanian border to the Middle East on impulse 4. And fine weather on impulse 6.

The only thing that could have saved Persia was if the allies didn't get another impulse (10%). That didn't happen and Persia fell easily to the Soviet player this turn.

[rkr1958]

Turn 1. Sep/Oct 1939 (fd). Persia. Post Soviet Conquest.

[rkr1958]

Turn 1. Sep/Oct 1939. War Logs. Asian & Pacific Fronts.

[rkr1958]

Turn 1. August 31, 1939. Soviet Asia.

The strong Soviet setup in the Middle East meant a very weak Soviet Asian setup opposite Japan. The attempts by the Soviet player to seek a non-aggression agreement and then a pact with the Japanese player was rebuffed without comment. These rebuffs by the Japanese player became more than obvious with a Japanese setup that seemed obviously positioned to exploit the weak Soviet Asian setup.

[rkr1958]

Turn 1. Sep/Oct 1939. Axis 01. Sea of Japan.