An Attempt to use MWiF to Simulated WW2 Reasonably Historically

Post descriptions of your brilliant successes and unfortunate demises.

Moderator: Shannon V. OKeets

tverse
Posts: 349
Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2016 10:53 pm

RE: An Attempt to use MWiF to Simulated WW2 Reasonably Historically

Post by 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?

Also your CRT calculator, I assume that is your own tool and not part of the game?
AAR Carry out Operation Husky
tm.asp?m=4420472
User avatar
rkr1958
Posts: 30169
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 10:23 am

RE: An Attempt to use MWiF to Simulated WW2 Reasonably Historically

Post by rkr1958 »

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. [:)]
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. [8D]

Attachments
2D10_Calculator.zip
(19.27 KiB) Downloaded 14 times
Ronnie
tverse
Posts: 349
Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2016 10:53 pm

RE: An Attempt to use MWiF to Simulated WW2 Reasonably Historically

Post by 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?
AAR Carry out Operation Husky
tm.asp?m=4420472
cfinch
Posts: 88
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2016 8:53 pm

RE: An Attempt to use MWiF to Simulated WW2 Reasonably Historically

Post by cfinch »

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
User avatar
rkr1958
Posts: 30169
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 10:23 am

RE: An Attempt to use MWiF to Simulated WW2 Reasonably Historically

Post by rkr1958 »

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.

Image
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. [8D]
Ronnie
brian brian
Posts: 3191
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 6:39 pm

RE: An Attempt to use MWiF to Simulated WW2 Reasonably Historically

Post by brian brian »

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.
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 42129
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: An Attempt to use MWiF to Simulated WW2 Reasonably Historically

Post by warspite1 »

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

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.

Image
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. [8D]
warspite1

Enjoy [:)][8D] - the book, the beers and the spaghetti!


Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
tverse
Posts: 349
Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2016 10:53 pm

RE: An Attempt to use MWiF to Simulated WW2 Reasonably Historically

Post by tverse »

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.
AAR Carry out Operation Husky
tm.asp?m=4420472
User avatar
rkr1958
Posts: 30169
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 10:23 am

RE: An Attempt to use MWiF to Simulated WW2 Reasonably Historically

Post by rkr1958 »

Turn 5. May/June 1940. Trade.

Image
Attachments
00Trade.jpg
00Trade.jpg (339.23 KiB) Viewed 716 times
Ronnie
User avatar
rkr1958
Posts: 30169
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 10:23 am

RE: An Attempt to use MWiF to Simulated WW2 Reasonably Historically

Post by rkr1958 »

Turn 5. May/June 1940. The Western Front (End of Last Turn to Post Reinforcements). Initiative.

Image
Attachments
00WesternFront.jpg
00WesternFront.jpg (1.27 MiB) Viewed 716 times
Ronnie
User avatar
rkr1958
Posts: 30169
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 10:23 am

RE: An Attempt to use MWiF to Simulated WW2 Reasonably Historically

Post by rkr1958 »

Turn 5. May/June 1940. Allied #1. France.

1. The French seriously considered a counterattack to retake Lille. In the end the downside of such an attack if it failed was deemed too risky and no attack was made.

2. The CW get the BEF back in supply (via transport(s) in North Sea). The two BEF corps in Belgium were pulled back into France to the port of Calais. In order to stay out of the way of the French corps also pulling back along the Channel coast, Gort and his HQ had to move into Le Harvey. (That is, the French and CW aren't allowed to stack together).

3. The RN moves two empty, and heavily, escorted transports into the North Sea in case evacuation of the BEF becomes necessary. A third transport is in Gibraltar and will be moved to the North Sea next turn. The CW took a combine and therefore was limited to two naval moves.


Image
Attachments
01ALFran..ostMove.jpg
01ALFran..ostMove.jpg (671.14 KiB) Viewed 716 times
Ronnie
User avatar
rkr1958
Posts: 30169
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 10:23 am

RE: An Attempt to use MWiF to Simulated WW2 Reasonably Historically

Post by rkr1958 »

Turn 5. May/June 1940. Allied #1. USSR Annexes Bessarabia.

Image
Attachments
01ALUSSR..Allowed.jpg
01ALUSSR..Allowed.jpg (603.01 KiB) Viewed 716 times
Ronnie
User avatar
rkr1958
Posts: 30169
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 10:23 am

RE: An Attempt to use MWiF to Simulated WW2 Reasonably Historically

Post by rkr1958 »

Turn 5. May/June 1940. Axis #2. France. German Land Combat (1 of 2).

1. Germany launches two Blitz land combats designed to split the French defenses in three parts and encircle the middle part.

2. The first attack is on the clear hex SE of Lille.

3. A fierce air battle over ground support between the Luftwaffe and the French air force takes place. Though, one again the Luftwaffe in fighters is both superior in number and quality, the French bombers bush by the Luftwaffe and are cleared through. The Luftwaffe fighter/bomber is also cleared through.

4. Though the land combat has a PWIN of 98.2%, it's chance of achieving the desired breakthrough is 88%. Very good odds but far from a sure thing.

5. The Germans roll well (enough) to destroy 2 of the 3 French defenders, shatter the third and breakthrough.

Image
Attachments
02-AX-LC-FRA_53_30.jpg
02-AX-LC-FRA_53_30.jpg (859 KiB) Viewed 716 times
Ronnie
User avatar
rkr1958
Posts: 30169
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 10:23 am

RE: An Attempt to use MWiF to Simulated WW2 Reasonably Historically

Post by rkr1958 »

Turn 5. May/June 1940. Axis #2. France. German Land Combat (2 of 2).

1. The second blitz land combat is a bit dicier. It is made on the clear hex directly west of Strasbourg. It includes a drop by the II FJR corps on the target hex and engineering support to one unit across the river in the hex northeast.

2. Another fierce air battle between the Luftwaffe and French air force takes place. This time the Luftwaffe fighters, who again hold the numbers and quality advantage, do manage to down the French fighter-bomber, killing its pilot. However, the French fighters also manage to shoot down a Stuka, but unlike the French, its pilot survives.

3. PWIN if 90.6%, which means that there's a 9.4% chance that the II FJR corps will be destroyed. The chance of a breakthrough is also lower at 73.1% than in the first blitz attack. Von Brock does what he can by providing +1.5 in HQ support.

4. The Germans (again) roll well (enough) to destroy two defenders, shatter a third and achieve their breakthrough.

Image
Attachments
02AXLCFRA_55_32.jpg
02AXLCFRA_55_32.jpg (1.03 MiB) Viewed 716 times
Ronnie
User avatar
rkr1958
Posts: 30169
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 10:23 am

RE: An Attempt to use MWiF to Simulated WW2 Reasonably Historically

Post by rkr1958 »

Turn 5. May/June 1940. Axis #2. France.

1. The first point is a bit of an exaggeration. I'd say that maybe 2/3rd's and not 3/4th of the French army is out of supply.

2. However, the third point is right on, the situation in France is indeed desperate.

Image
Attachments
02AXPostBlitzs.jpg
02AXPostBlitzs.jpg (706.58 KiB) Viewed 716 times
Ronnie
User avatar
rkr1958
Posts: 30169
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 10:23 am

RE: An Attempt to use MWiF to Simulated WW2 Reasonably Historically

Post by rkr1958 »

Turn 5. May/June 1940. Allied #3. France.

1. The French army pulls back and escapes encirclement (for now).

2. The French high command evens contemplates counterattacking the spearheads of the two breakthroughs but in the end decides not two because they estimate that such attacks would accelerate the destruction of the French army and lead to the fall of France.

Image
Attachments
03ALFren..Analysis.jpg
03ALFren..Analysis.jpg (624.27 KiB) Viewed 716 times
Ronnie
User avatar
rkr1958
Posts: 30169
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 10:23 am

RE: An Attempt to use MWiF to Simulated WW2 Reasonably Historically

Post by rkr1958 »

Turn 5. May/June 1940. Axis #4. France. Two German Blitz Land Combats.

Image
Attachments
04AXGERLCx2.jpg
04AXGERLCx2.jpg (1.69 MiB) Viewed 716 times
Ronnie
User avatar
rkr1958
Posts: 30169
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 10:23 am

RE: An Attempt to use MWiF to Simulated WW2 Reasonably Historically

Post by rkr1958 »

Turn 5. May/June 1940. Allied #5. France.

Image
Attachments
05ALFrance.jpg
05ALFrance.jpg (585.95 KiB) Viewed 716 times
Ronnie
User avatar
rkr1958
Posts: 30169
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 10:23 am

RE: An Attempt to use MWiF to Simulated WW2 Reasonably Historically

Post by rkr1958 »

Turn 5. May/June 1940. Axis #6. France. One German Overrun and Two Blitz Attacks.

Image
Attachments
06-AX-GER-LC.jpg
06-AX-GER-LC.jpg (1.01 MiB) Viewed 716 times
Ronnie
User avatar
rkr1958
Posts: 30169
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 10:23 am

RE: An Attempt to use MWiF to Simulated WW2 Reasonably Historically

Post by rkr1958 »

Turn 5. May/June 1940. Allied #7. France.
PM Churchill issues the order, "Get our boys out of France, now!" Orders go out to Lord Gort and Admiral of the Fleet Charles Forbers, commander of the Home Fleet, to evacuate the BEF with operations to that effect beginning immediately.

Image
Attachments
07ALFrance.jpg
07ALFrance.jpg (626.98 KiB) Viewed 716 times
Ronnie
Post Reply

Return to “After Action Report”