Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR

[Grotius]

Centuur: Ah, I see, by defending Brussels, you in effect give Germany the chance to "move" one hex further than it would otherwise (assuming it wins the battle to take Brussels). I never would have thought of that!

TeaLeaf: Thanks for your reply. It confirms some of my sense of things. But now you have me thinking about how China defends. Does it really have enough units to stack two at a time? If not, and if the weather is good, won't Japan just encircle them? (lol - I know I'm arguing against my earlier post, in which I was lamenting supply limits on Japanese advance.)

[TeaLeaf]

ORIGINAL: Grotius
Does it really have enough units to stack two at a time? If not, and if the weather is good, won't Japan just encircle them? (lol - I know I'm arguing against my earlier post, in which I was lamenting supply limits on Japanese advance.)

China has enough units to stack 2 per hex.
Though, not in every adjacent hex, if u get what I mean... China can form a cohesive defense line with 2 units every other hex. The trick is finding the (curved) north-south axis where this line should be.

Then, after the Japanese set-up, it should be clear where in the frontline reinforcements are needed. Some units from less pressured parts in the line can move away from their starting positions into the section where Japan obviously is heading to. So, a small section of the frontline can have 2 units every adjacent hex, if need be.

[rkr1958]

ORIGINAL: Grotius

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.

I think the mistake I made was trying to defend too much and too thinly. I mistake I'm trying not to repeat in my game against jjdenver. Though, a mistake at some level I've already made initially but am trying to correct hopefully not at the expense of losing China (again).

My game against Pat (this AAR) was my first (M)WiF game against a human opponent. A very skilled and experienced one at that. Also, the mistake(s) I made in China, I made them even to an even worse degree in Spain when the axis invaded. And then there's Russia ... [:(]

[Grotius]

Thanks for your reply. I'm up to page 12 of your AAR now, really learning a lot. I had another couple questions about it.

1. First, on page 9, post 257, you chose blitz for an attack against one of your Chinese stacks, but assault for an attack against a lone division. I'm still trying to grok why players might choose one or the other CRT table. You probably don't remember, and it's not a big deal!

2. Also, more generally, both sides were somewhat active in East Africa. In my solitaire games, I again seem to have supply trouble moving units around down there. How does either side supply troops that want to attack outside their own territories there?

[Courtenay]

ORIGINAL: Grotius

Thanks for your reply. I'm up to page 12 of your AAR now, really learning a lot. I had another couple questions about it.

1. First, on page 9, post 257, you chose blitz for an attack against one of your Chinese stacks, but assault for an attack against a lone division. I'm still trying to grok why players might choose one or the other CRT table. You probably don't remember, and it's not a big deal!

2. Also, more generally, both sides were somewhat active in East Africa. In my solitaire games, I again seem to have supply trouble moving units around down there. How does either side supply troops that want to attack outside their own territories there?

I wasn't playing the game, but I think I know the answers:
1) The reason the Chinese player chose blitz in the attack on a Chinese stack was that he cared more about losing fewer units than he did about holding the hex or inflicting casualties on the Japanese. The blitz table has fewer casualties for both sides, but is much more likely to lose territory.

2) You don't supply units in Africa. The point is to threaten to take undefended capitals. The point is that this gives your opponent two choices: Either spend resources to get units to defend the places, or to let you take the capitals. Either is good for you.

[rkr1958]

ORIGINAL: Courtenay

ORIGINAL: Grotius

Thanks for your reply. I'm up to page 12 of your AAR now, really learning a lot. I had another couple questions about it.

1. First, on page 9, post 257, you chose blitz for an attack against one of your Chinese stacks, but assault for an attack against a lone division. I'm still trying to grok why players might choose one or the other CRT table. You probably don't remember, and it's not a big deal!

2. Also, more generally, both sides were somewhat active in East Africa. In my solitaire games, I again seem to have supply trouble moving units around down there. How does either side supply troops that want to attack outside their own territories there?

I wasn't playing the game, but I think I know the answers:
1) The reason the Chinese player chose blitz in the attack on a Chinese stack was that he cared more about losing fewer units than he did about holding the hex or inflicting casualties on the Japanese. The blitz table has fewer casualties for both sides, but is much more likely to lose territory.

2) You don't supply units in Africa. The point is to threaten to take undefended capitals. The point is that this gives your opponent two choices: Either spend resources to get units to defend the places, or to let you take the capitals. Either is good for you.

(1) Exactly what Courtenay said ... or at least that was my thinking. Unless you're fighting for a critical city or hex, in China I will often choose Blitz to maximize the number of defenders that survive. Of course, there are times when you can play the odds in the hopes that the attacker might roll a modified 14 in which case you'd choose assault.

(2) I learned from Pat that one ignores or overlooks East and Central Africa at ones peril when playing with Territorials. I also, learned the lesson, in addition to the one pointed out by Courtenay, that these sideshow areas are fought and won by maneuver, stealth and even intrigue.

[brian brian]

Picking Blitz or Assault by the defender should be entirely situational, on a battle by battle basis.

Many attacking players forget they can use a superiority in ARM to choose the Assault table - this is handy to prevent enemy ARM from escaping via an R or B result on the Blitz table. But that is probably a tad more common on the table-top game, where there is no decision window prompting you to answer that question.

[Grotius]

Thanks for your replies. My supply question about East Africa is: how does your Territorial unit eat once it starts moving away from its supply source (presumably the minor country capital)? Doesn't it have to trace a basic supply route of 4 hexes?

Also, what are the advantages of conquering minor country capitals in East Africa, or even in a place like Tunisia? There's no economic advantage, is there, unless there's a resource or a factory to be taken. I suppose there's a strategic advantage -- a port like Tunis, say. Of course, victory locations are a huge thing, but I don't see any in East Africa, aside from Suez. It sounds like I need to read more of your AAR to understand why that "sideshow" is important.

[rkr1958]

ORIGINAL: Grotius

Thanks for your replies. My supply question about East Africa is: how does your Territorial unit eat once it starts moving away from its supply source (presumably the minor country capital)? Doesn't it have to trace a basic supply route of 4 hexes?

Also, what are the advantages of conquering minor country capitals in East Africa, or even in a place like Tunisia? There's no economic advantage, is there, unless there's a resource or a factory to be taken. I suppose there's a strategic advantage -- a port like Tunis, say. Of course, victory locations are a huge thing, but I don't see any in East Africa, aside from Suez. It sounds like I need to read more of your AAR to understand why that "sideshow" is important.

Isolated reorg is coded yet so Terr automatically reorg at the end of every turn. So you can march them one impulse a turn until they get to their objective. Once you capture a country then that country's Terr switch to your side. Eventually, you can capture enough such that you can get to something critical, like South Africa for example, which Pat did late in our game.

[Grotius]

Ah, I see. Thanks. I'm still reading.

[brian brian]

In East Africa, a whole lot depends on which TERR each side draws. The best for the Axis is the AOI flexi-territory unit. 2nd best are the Ethiopians. The Eritreans can only go north or west, once French and British Somalilands are conquered, and the Italian Somalis are kind of pitiful, really.

For the CW, simply lucking into the Kenyan TERR makes the whole theater start to look pointless for the Axis, and they won't be real thrilled to see the British Somali appear, though that one might be within range of combat supply for an exciting one-off micro battle, iirc. 2nd best for them is Mozambique. The Ugandan TERR is pretty nifty. It used to be that it could temporarily cheat it's way across Kenyan territory to invade Ethiopia, but I think that has been ruled against by the Laws of War lawyers in Australia now. Not sure if MWiF lets that happen.

And the best CW TERR are the ones from CW Home Countries - N. Ireland, Canada, South Africa, India, Australia, New Zealand. They can enter any CW country or territory on the map, once the Royal Navy web of lift can start delivering them somewhere.

But every game will be different in that regard.

[brian brian]

Ahh, looking at the screen-shots in the Rematch thread reveals that MWiF Africa is just too big for the TERRitorials to fight actual battles. I think I was recalling possible activity on the 'asian scale' paper map of Africa.

Another Allied decision that can ever-so-slightly improve their position in Africa is to make Belgian Congo the new Home Country for Belgium. If they have the Belgian FTR, which sometimes happens as it returns to base in England after an air battle, it can end up in the Congo later on where it can back up the Belgian TERR a little and you might actually see an apocalyptic TERR vs TERR battle - 2 units enter, maybe none remain.

[Grotius]

Brian, why is that TERR units won't be able to fight actual battles? Is it because they'll mostly be more than 4 hexes from their primary supply source -- their capital city?

[brian brian]

Yes

[TeaLeaf]

Regarding the TERR-problem:
The CW doesn't necessarily need TERR to fight Italian TERR roaming through Africa. I'd rather build better land units instead.

With them, another option is to simply conquer the home country of the troublesome TERR. For example:
If the Ethiopian TERR is causing problems, load a fast land unit from somewhere and unload it close to Addis Ababa and then after a few impulses take that City: TERR will be removed from the map. Move the fast land unit back to the coast, pick it up and use it somewhere else.

If playing with Isolated reorg, you can also just cut the supply lines of the TERR (or any other kind of unit) with fast unit(s). I highly recommend this option (or at least playing the game in the spirit of this option), because... land units marching 100 or even 1000 of miles without supply? Humbug.

I try to avoid building TERR if possible. Not at all costs, but so far I never had to build one [:D].

[Courtenay]

The US almost always builds the Philippene territorial, and I usually build a lot of TERR for the Japanese.

[TeaLeaf]

Ah, yes. What was I thinking [;)].
Apparently I was only thinking about the CW, because I do the same, Courtenay. Glad you brought that up [:)]

[Grotius]

I'm up to page 25 of the AAR now. Enjoying it very much; learning a lot. I know it was a learning game for Ronnie, but I think he did well for a first go -- better than I would have done! A couple more questions:

1. In post 644, on page 22, Ronnie says: "Note the RAF fighter in Corsica. This move was only possible because of the rebasing of the British artillery division from France to Antwerp." I assume this is because of Foreign Troop Commitment?

2. Why did Ronnie want an RAF fighter in Corsica? Fighter cover for Italian Coast?

3. Is it typical for the Allies to hold out so long in Antwerp? Did Ronnie leave forces there so that he could add more British forces to France (consistent with Foreign Troop Commitment)?

4. Pat moved extra Japanese land units into China at the start of the game. Do Japanese players typically do this? Eventually Pat had a huge army in China; is that typical too? I guess Japan doesn't need troops elsewhere, if it has a peace pact with the USSR, and if the CW doesn't DOW it. The CW is busy elsewhere, and it pays a US entry cost for DOWing Japan. So I guess I'm wondering if there's any downside or risk to going large in China, as Pat did, other than the US entry hits for taking Chinese cities (and conquering China).

Thanks!

Many thanks!

[Courtenay]

ORIGINAL: Grotius

I'm up to page 25 of the AAR now. Enjoying it very much; learning a lot. I know it was a learning game for Ronnie, but I think he did well for a first go -- better than I would have done! A couple more questions:

1. In post 644, on page 22, Ronnie says: "Note the RAF fighter in Corsica. This move was only possible because of the rebasing of the British artillery division from France to Antwerp." I assume this is because of Foreign Troop Commitment?

2. Why did Ronnie want an RAF fighter in Corsica? Fighter cover for Italian Coast?

3. Is it typical for the Allies to hold out so long in Antwerp? Did Ronnie leave forces there so that he could add more British forces to France (consistent with Foreign Troop Commitment)?

4. Pat moved extra Japanese land units into China at the start of the game. Do Japanese players typically do this? Eventually Pat had a huge army in China; is that typical too? I guess Japan doesn't need troops elsewhere, if it has a peace pact with the USSR, and if the CW doesn't DOW it. The CW is busy elsewhere, and it pays a US entry cost for DOWing Japan. So I guess I'm wondering if there's any downside or risk to going large in China, as Pat did, other than the US entry hits for taking Chinese cities (and conquering China).

Thanks!

Many thanks!

1) Yes.

2) I don't know why Ronnie did it, since I am not Ronnie! The reason to base in Corsica (as opposed to, say, Malta) is to provide FTR cover for port strike on Italian Navy.

3) I do not know if I would say "Typical"; it is a goal the Allies shoot for. The Germans try to prevent this from happening. Sometimes they succeed; others not. Sometimes the Allies manage to hold onto Rotterdam; sometimes Brussels, and sometimes the whole Belgian front collapses in one impulse. The game very wildly.

4) I would say everyone puts more units in China. The only downside from a huge army in China is that any build points spent on ground units are points not spent on the navy. The fall of China that happened in this game is unusual, but not unheard of.

[rkr1958]

ORIGINAL: Grotius
1. In post 644, on page 22, Ronnie says: "Note the RAF fighter in Corsica. This move was only possible because of the rebasing of the British artillery division from France to Antwerp." I assume this is because of Foreign Troop Commitment?

Foreign Troop Commitment (FTC) has no impact on the ability of the CW to base units in Corsica, except that the CW and French can't stack together. So, I was mistaken about FTC when I wrote the previous (i.e., post 644) and thought it did apply to Corsica.

ORIGINAL: Grotius
2. Why did Ronnie want an RAF fighter in Corsica? Fighter cover for Italian Coast?

Corsica was just a waypoint to Gibraltar or Malta. I can't remember but if the fighter in question didn't have the range to fly directly from England to Corscia, but had to stop in France first, then my comment about FTC would apply. Maybe that's what I meant.