Scripted Madness 2.

[rkr1958]

Scripted Madness 2.

I must admit that I'm addicted. I'm addicted to MWiF and to the search for the "perfect" simulation of WW-2.

Now, if you ask me what "perfect" means in this context I must also admit that I don't really know. I liken it to the "Bring-Me-a-Rock" school of management. A type of management that I've encountered numerous times in my 40-year professional career.

For those of you unfamiliar with this style of management, it's basically where a manager asks you for something (e.g., a briefing) and only provides scant details on exactly what they want. After whatever time given (e.g., day, week or even a month) you return to the manager with what you (and your team) have produced to only be told that that's not exactly what they were looking for and to go back and with no additional feedback to go back make it better. The process is repeated until either you produce what the manager "wants" or you run out time.

How does all this related to a rock? Basically, all the manager knows is that he wants the perfect rock but he won't know what the perfect rock is until he sees it. In the meantime he knows the rocks you're bring him aren't it. So you keep bringing him rocks until you finally find the one he's been looking for.

Promise ... I haven't been drinking anything stronger that coffee ...

So, on the 78th anniversary of the Japanese surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, I begin another attempt to produce the prefect simulation of WW-2 using MWiF and some amount of minimum scripting.

I'm starting this adventure with MWiF version 3.0.5 and the optionals shown below. Also, as I proceed through this iteration of "bringing you a rock" I'll cover whatever scripts I use as they apply.

Before getting into specifics of the scripts, below is an outline of what I'd like to address with them.

1. Japanese Army/Navy Command Conflict.

2. Soviet/Japanese Tensions and Mutual Distrust.

3. IJA's Quagmire in China.

4. Soviet Eastern European Expansion in Context of Soviet/Nazi Distrust.

5. Soviet/Finnish Winter War.

6. Western Allied Phony War.

7. Operation Weserübung.

8. El Duce's Opportunism.

9. Balkan Distractions (possibly caused by El Duce).

10. More Lethal Battle of the Atlantic.

11. More build out of the RN w/o limiting "traditional" CW game builds.

12. More build out of the USN (especially their carriers) w/o limiting "traditional" USA game builds.

[rkr1958]

Scrapped.

Lots of air, naval and a few land units scrapped (I guess). I made no attempt to be "historical" on the units I did or didn't scrap.

I do like the update Steve made to the pool forms in this latest version (i.e., 3.0.5).

[rkr1958]

Lend Lease.

For those interested in such things I've included the (initial) Lend Lease Air Units.

Confession. After the initial lend lease I tend not to bother with it. The reason is that I just forget about it. This game, however, I going to make it a point to address lend lease at least once per turn in the hopes of doing a better job with it.

[rkr1958]

Japanese Militarism 1930's (1/2).

While the official date for the start of the second World War is marked as either September 1, 1939 (when Germany invaded Poland) or September 3, 1939 (when both Britain and France declared war on Germany), Japan had been at war with China for over two years. And, even further back in September 1931, Japan had invaded and conquered Manchuria in a campaign that lasted a little more than five months.

[rkr1958]

Japanese's Militarism (2/2).

And then there's was that "little" border class between Japan and the USSR than begun on the 11th of May and wrapped up on the 15th of September, 1939. This undeclared war on the Mongolian and Manchurian border was a victory for the Soviet and Mongolian forces led by Zhukov and a defeat for the Japanese 6th army.

This border clash led to an uneasy peace between Japan and the Soviet Union until August 1945, which was almost the entirety of World War 2, at which time the Soviets invaded Manchuria.

[rkr1958]

Soviet and Japanese Tension.

The attached table was complied from WiF CE "Setup spreadsheet" and "Campaign Book". The only modification is in the last three blocks for Japan in which I substituted an infantry division for a garrison division, of which there are no such thing in MWiF (WiF FE).

"Peaceful" tension will be scripted between the USSR and Japan based on this table. There will be no need to bother with a neutrality pact (historically signed on April 13, 1941) or chits. The USSR and Japan will NOT declare war on each other until July/August 1945 at the earliest and only (obviously) if the game is still going on and the situation warrants it.

Now this "peaceful" tension between the USSR and Japan doesn't come for free. The price for each is to maintain/achieve the forces shown by the dates given in the attached table. For the USSR these forces must be maintained in Soviet Asia and for Japan in Korea and Manchuria. These forces will be based in positions that make the most tactical sense, with an eye towards being within 3-hexes of an enemy hex (i.e., would count as part of the garrison ratio if there was actually a neutrality pact between the USSR and Japan).

[rkr1958]

Soviet Asia, Mongolia, Manchuria, Korea.

Keeping the Peace.

Though I know that the USSR and Japan won't attack each other I still deployed each sides forces with a defensive eye towards the possibility that they could in order to get be sloppy with my setups. That's why Zhukov, the 4th Siberians and 76mm A/T gun division are in the mountains defending the trans-Siberian railway instead of up closer to the Manchurian border.

Since the Soviets setup before the Japanese do I've learned the hard war that these forces are susceptible to a surprise ground strike, envelopment and destruction by the Japanese if they're deployed too close to the border.

Also, I wanted to make sure that both Seoul and Port Arthur are garrisoned as a counter to a surprise amphibious invasion by the Japanese. Though (again), I know that neither side will invade the other I didn't want to get sloppy with my defense and pick up some bad habits.

[brian brian]

I dunno Ronnie, I think you will end up in the same space every time. Unless you just set the die rolls to just recreate history all the way through.

And I have been thinking of suggesting just simply playing a scenario. Are you trying to reach a certain game point and then have to make choices with the same facts to deal with as the historical Commanders in Chief?

Otherwise, the dice will lead any Major Power into changes in that they will try to follow an historical line, but then can't ignore the random opportunity that game Chaos delivers. Should the German war machine sit on the Rhine in the spring of 1940 and do nothing while the weather is a 10 for every impulse of March/April, just because of history? What if the German war machine succeeds in France beyond OKH's wildest dreams, entering Paris in a single turn - should Germany then demobilize a few decisions and waffle around doing not much at all through the premium campaigning turn in the game, July-August? (Historical)

Here is a counter example from an AAR I see on Facebook. Barbarossa launched about historically and the Russian player looks to be very good tactically. The Russians are choosing to stand on the Dnepr, and Army Group South has only been able to clear Kiev and Odessa, but not the other Russian cities in front of the lower Dnepr. Yet Army Group North has a strong force that has both obliterated the Red Army in front of it, and crossed the headwaters of the Dnepr. The players in this game are not trying to recreate history in any way - they are simply playing to win. Nonetheless, the German player now faces the exact decision point Hitler did - continue to drive on Moscow, or detach a Panzer Army to the south and flank the Dnepr position that way?

I think if you just play an organic game of trying to win for each Major Power, you will find yourself in plenty of very historical tough choices. Where do the Allies commit their AMPHs in 1943? Once they go somewhere for that summer ... other theaters stall.

I think given how many times you have played the game through solitaire now, you should play a live opponent. Solitaire is extremely educational in many ways, but after a while, you have to try your ideas against a person, or else you are just watching a classic Bill Murray movie.

But I did see a lot of interesting things in your 12 point guidelines for this, thought I would pass along a few comments on those.

[brian brian]

And I see that a very interesting point you made was not in the list of 12...

Whew. Ironically, I mentioned the 12 points because your notes for this mentioned the Allies playing like France would never fall. I thought that was also a brilliant insight. And I think most don't realize that this is precisely how the Allies should play World in Flames, in my opinion. The historical Allies landed a second BEF after Dunkirk. So many WiF players both don't know that, and would never do that. They land Gort and 2 MOT and they sit on the beach and kind of watch the French crumble, with never a die roll being made by them or against them and then they sail away and then the CW player congratulates himself for a job well done - I saved 13 BP worth of units! They accomplished nothing!

Rubbish. Dig a couple CW INF into Rouen and fly CAP over them maybe, with Home Fleet sitting offshore. Make the German player roll dice there when he would rather be up to no good down in Greece. While the Wavell HQ and an Anti-Tank gun dares Rommel to try and cross the Gironde river. Have CW convoys deliver gun tubes (replace all French AA/AT gun losses, though they should never truly lose them except to 'Shatter' results, and the wonderful new ART in 1940) to French ports for several turns. (Build Points, not just Resources). Sure, Germany might take Paris and those units become psuedo-Axis "Vichy" units. But leave the French production spiral empty and sail the BEF home to England, and Franco and then The Rock might pay the price, all that much quicker.

[rkr1958]

ORIGINAL: brian brian

I always appreciate your well thought out and constructive comments. Thanks for following and commenting. I'd like to address the following from your previous post if I may.

ORIGINAL: brian brian
I think given how many times you have played the game through solitaire now, you should play a live opponent. Solitaire is extremely educational in many ways, but after a while, you have to try your ideas against a person, or else you are just watching a classic Bill Murray movie.

I understand and agree with what you're saying here. To be frank, I'm conflicted on playing solitaire versus playing a live opponent. Your comment caused me to ask (myself) a very basic question. Why do I play MWiF, or any other wargame? Why have I ever played them (going back almost 50-years to my first play, which was AH's Stalingrad). Boy, that's a long time ago ... good grief I'm getting old. [:(]

I play wargames differently than non-wargame games (e.g., monopoly, risk, spades, yahtzee). The latter I play "just as a game" and try to win by "any means" allowed by the rules. The former, I play to immerse myself in the history covered by the scale and scope of the wargame.

Though I was born 13-years after the war ended (i.e., World War 2) , growing up the second world war wasn't ancient history as it's now becoming. It was very much living history less than two and then three decades removed from the actual event. Both my dad and uncle were veterans of the war. My dad was in the Army air corps and served in the China-Burma-India (in India) theater. My dad retired from the Air Force in 1962 at the rank of master sergeant. During the war he served in a communications unit behind the front lines and didn't see any combat. He regularly talked about his wartime experiences, which were all non-combat. My uncle on the other hand served aboard a combat ship, saw lots of action and never talked about his wartime experiences.

Growing up I was fascinated with World War 2. The veterans were my dad's and parent's of my friends generation and were in their 40's and then 50's. At the time they all seemed ancient, but now I see that they were in the prime of their life. It was this environment that instilled a fascination in me with the second world war, one which I still have today. Back then, the history of World War 2 was very much alive and vibrant. Though now (40 to 50-years later) I'm sadden to realize that we are now quickly losing my dad's generation and that the second world war has almost passed out of living memory and solely into history. Back as a youth, with no concept of aging, it seemed that my dad and his generation would be with us always. I had no understand that one day they'd be gone.

What does all this mean? For me, I always approach wargames with the aim to be as faithful to the history and scope that they covered as I can. This doesn't mean I want to play them as one would watch a DVD series, or a documentary, on the war. I don't. I want to play them within the rules and spirit of what they're covering in the "hopes" that they produce a result that's believable, well at least believable to me. And if in some play of the game it happens to produce a result that matches history then this is proof to me that the results produced from other plays are indeed believable, and were possible, as an alternate history.

I do understand that World in Flames is first and foremost a game. And as a game, Harry and the other designers/developers/playtesters had to walk a very fine line between balancing the game versus historical realism. I understand, for example, that some of that balancing is scaling back the US war economy.

Over the past couple of years I've probably read twenty or more books on the US Pacific War. At least a dozen of them have covered the all important Battle of Midway to some extent. What I've come to conclude is that while the Battle of Midway was the pivotal naval battle of WW-2, it did not decide the winner in the Pacific. Even if the US had lost, and lost badly, Japan would still have been beaten by the might of the US and their allies and forced to surrender unconditionally. At war's end, the USN had over 100 aircraft carriers (CV's, CVL's & CVE's), not to mention the number of battleships, cruisers, destroyers they had. In no game of MWiF have I ever ended the game with the USN even remotely close to the size it actually was in August 1945.

I recall in strategy notes (and I'm paraphrasing) that (M)WiF is just a game and as such, the perfect win for the CW or US would be to win the game with a single ship left. Yes as a game I agree 100% with this. But, as a vehicle to experience/explorer the actual and (realistic) alternate history of the second world war I couldn't disagree more.

Also, I've seen strategies that in order to preserve forces that recommended pulling CW forces out of areas such as the Egypt and that Middle East that in no way, no how would Winston Churchill have done. I have a very difficult time playing MWiF that way and this certainly is one of my many weaknesses when playing against a live opponent.

Finally to wrap this long winded post up ... I do realize that when it comes to playing (M)WiF that I'm the exception (by far) and not the rule of the folks that play. It's being this exception that I struggle between playing solo versus against a live opponent. This doesn't mean that I will always play solo ... someday soon I hope to play again against a live opponent. Hopefully one that's equal to my skill and not superior as my previous attempts at live play have been. But for now, and possibly until retirement in 4 or so years, I'll have to be content muddling along with solo play.

[Centuur]

Historical play is impossible for World in Flames, except when you simulate the historical outcome of battles, weather conditions, turn length and such things.

You can start with a somewhat historical setup (if you don't scrap anything at start of the game), but after that, the dice are in charge.

The game in itself has the challenge for the Allies to beat the historical outcome of the war at the end of J/A 1945. This means that the Allies have to get more victory points at the end of that turn than they did have at that time in 1945 historically.

IMHO, if you restrict logical decisions which present itself due to weather conditions, the grand strategy you want to employ or any opportunities which arise due to combat results or anything else which happens, you'll find that you cannot expand the Axis positions enough to make sure you will survive until 1945. It's too easy for the Allies to win if you do so.

Also: why do you want a phony war? Because the weather was bad historically? Well, in MWIF the weather can be very nasty in M/J 1940 and very nice in N/D 1939... It's all in the game.

And there's the Fog of War in the game too. Midway? Nice battle, but what if Nagumo wasn't attacked with his planes on the decks being refuelled? Or what if MWIF decides that there isn't going to be a battle, since both sides don't find eachother?

World in Flames developers deliberately reduced the economic power of the United States, because of the historical outcome of the war. It was stupid of the US to build so many warships during the war (afterwards, it's easy to write this). If they would have trained and equipped more land units, build more merchant ships and transport capability, they would probably have won the war faster than they did in the end. Transports and merchantmen especially were always in short supply, even at the end of the war. If you count the number of build points the US spend historically on ships and compare them to what they could have spend the money on, well, you'll be surprised at the extra number of offensives and extra land and aircraft units you could build in the game, crushing the Axis earlier than historically happened.

I would also advise you to find a player to play with. I've been surprised by a lot of things on the board in the past and I'm now surprised again on how things turn out on the netplay games I've going now. The challenge in the game is to be very stubborn when playing the Allies. Never surrender, always continue play, because even if the USSR seems to be going down, there comes a time when Uncle Sam becomes the green monster on the board, which will end up in an Axis nightmare. Only: is that monster there in time to win? That's the challenge for both the Axis and the Allies.

[Courtenay]

ORIGINAL: Centuur
World in Flames developers deliberately reduced the economic power of the United States, because of the historical outcome of the war. It was stupid of the US to build so many warships during the war (afterwards, it's easy to write this).

To simulate the historical US production, a good rule would be to make Gear-up give a .5 production multiplier, but require the extra .25 to be all spent on constructing SCSs (start and finish), plus it may be used to start CVs in '43, and to start or finish CVs in '44 and '45.

[brian brian]

I think it is worth remembering that World in Flames is designed as a bit of an abstract game, really. The designer doesn't even tell you how many aircraft are in a counter. And what, exactly, is a Build Point?

US Production and players not building ships is commented on routinely in the world of WiF. But this game has been played since the mid-1980s, and I am pretty sure the fixed end point and the amount of USA production and what the players decide to do has resulted in players not building out the incredible USN pretty much since the beginning. This is a reality, some would say problem, with all historical wargames - we know what happened.

And I think by this time, the designer has probably accounted for all of that in his decisions. As Courtenay just summarized, you could increase production but require more ship building - but to what end? To have a bunch of ships appear on the map for 2 turns? Players just want to get on with playing the game.

Here is another way to look at American production. I read during some Collector's Edition analysis that the USA built merchant shipping in WWII that would total 180 Convoy Points. That would cost about 10% of a game's total production for them. Yet at the same time, WiF commanders don't have to designate any shipping to supply bullets and food to some 15 Million soldiers outside of the USA. That took a lot of ships to accomplish, a lot more than a simple chain of 1 Convoy Point (30 or so ships), across a handful of sea zones, that also count for your economy simultaneously, if needed.

Yet in World in Flames, that has been abstracted away, for the sake of playability. Logistical realism is a rabbit hole of not-gaming. And though WiF is both a building game and a combat game, it ultimately is a playable game, via numerous simple abstractions necessary to keep the game moving.

Still another thing to consider is American war fighting philosophy. American commanders making a hopeless sacrificial attack as a diversion - was only done in rare circumstances, with a great deal of debate, and with a great deal of recrimination afterwards. ("Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press...") American opponents, and some Allies, didn't fight like that. Human life was highly valued in the American armed forces. And one place that was seen was in the equipment issued to American soldiers. German commanders were routinely quoted on this after the war, revealing their total astonishment at the quantity of combat flotsam left behind on any battlefield where the US Army engaged. That alone led them to declare they knew the war was lost, something I have read routinely over the years.

How that relates to WiF is - does an American INF and a German INF cost the same, if one were to add up the costs in units of 1940s currencies? I don't think so. How about a Russian INF? How many soldiers are even in an INF? The design doesn't say. Instead, you get these Build Points, and you have to use them to play the game.

World in Flames is designed to make you feel the pressures felt by the guys on the box - FDR, Churchill, Hitler, Stalin, etc. They were constrained by the natural inertia of their bureaucracies - you don't get to just order the production of Spitfires since your Air Ministry already ordered the Defiant without knowing it's liabilities in combat, so the Defiants are getting built even though you really want Spitfires. And then of course there are those damn action limits, a bugaboo even for absolute dictators. "I told Raeder not to move a ship named "Germany" without my specific instructions! Now, leave me alone, I have to go over these plans for the invasion of Poland and Goering is all upset about something too right now." Or, over in Moscow: "If this attack fails, you will be shot" - not exactly an operating philosophy that encouraged independent initiative rather than top-down control, which hits those limits.

[rkr1958]

Ok, another confession, I'm a Boomer through and through and I think that's a good thing! Now why did I just confess this?

Well, for those of you that have sent me PM's, I wasn't ignoring you. I just haven't thought to check my in-box in over a year. So, I'm reading through my PM's now and please forgive me if you thought I was ignoring you. [:(]

[rkr1958]

@Brian, meant to get back to you sooner.

I read through your 3-part (PM) critique on the 12 points in my initial post (of this thread) and wanted to let you (and everyone else) that I concur with your comments.

Your comments really got me wondering if it makes sense for me to "house rule" some of the things that I was proposing in order to try to achieve greater historical accuracy. Probably the biggest epiphany I had was that historical accuracy within (M)WiF, or any other ww-2 game for that matter, is a dependent variable of game rules, mechanics and play. For (M)WiF the game rules and mechanics have evolved over 30+ years, 1,000,000+ hours of play/playtesting and 7 (now 8) different versions. I need to accept (M)WiF for what it is and just play the game, have fun and accept the resultant historical accuracy. In reality, historical accuracy is in the eye of the beholder and as I've discovered as elusive as trying to find the pot of gold at the end of a rainbow.

With your permission I'd like to share what you wrote in those 3 PM's with the rest of the community. I don't mind "pasting" in what you wrote or you're welcome to paste it yourself. I though several folks might be interested and might even wish to provide their own takes on such. But only if you wish to make your comments know in general. Thanks again Brian for your feedback.

[brian brian]

no worries. you have to make some sausage to make a playable game; Bismarck had some cogent advice on this. Reading an AAR recently where the German player was looking directly at a key decision Hitler made in 1941, without even realizing it, I thought well illustrated that the sausage still comes out delicious once it is cooked.

your ideas on avoiding gameyness are all basically good ones. my question was - are the ones in the game system? 2 Axis powers rarely match their historical ship production - Japan & Italy.

here is another perspective on US production and then how many counters they put on the board: during USAAF "Big Week" bomber offensive, was that a 15 BP Super Combined impulse, or a 15 BP Air-Offensive impulse, or just a free Air impulse? We will never know. Did Hitler spend both of his Offensive Chits in 1940, or did he hold one till the next year?

I also like some scripting, have used it a little bit at a meta-level in my own solitaire gaming.

I dreamed up an interesting one for the 1944 scenario, call it Field Marshall Adolf vs His Generals

To move a German unit into a hex closer to the nearest German border hexside than it's current hex, the German player must roll a "2" or less on 1d10, with these modifiers:

-1 if adjacent to a German stack
-3 if in a stack, but only one unit may leave a stack per impulse
+2 if last unit in the hex (we'll leave you the new Panzerfaust delivery; good luck out there, Kampfgruppe Klink)
+2 if in a city or per non-oil resource in hex
+5 in oil or capital hex

die roll not necessary for "R" result in Blitz combat, except for SS unit. if die roll fails, SS unit removed but attacker casualties +1. German player still selects casualty units before Retreat as normally.

If > 15 BP of German ground units lost in country in previous impulse (Bagration, Falaise), all German units in country may move freely for rest of turn. If option selected, German player must remove one infantry class unit from country per impulse and place in Force Pool.

If # of PART counters > German garrison value in country, same mechanism may be selected.

German player must build every V-Weapon in Force Pool each Build Phase; place new V-Weapon counters in German city closest to Allied factory hex; fire V-Weapon in first German impulse or move V-Weapon to within range of Allied factory hex; repeat requirement in each subsequent impulse.

[rkr1958]

After much deliberation from all the good advice that I've received recently, not to mention the fact that still developing circumstances will likely lead to my full retirement by summer 2020, I've decided that it's time to move on from solo play.

With that said I now wish to take the next great step in my MWiF journey and play against human opponents. If interested please respond to this post or via PM (I promise I'll make a good faith effort to checking my PM's). But, first I'd like to lay out my (desired) conditions to maximize compatibility with future opponents.

1. I play for fun and I'm looking for a friendly game, or games. I would classify myself more as a casual gamer versus win at all cost, no holds bar gamer. I want to win but it's not the end all, do all for me. I trust my opponents and hope they trust me. For example, I have no desire more using a 3rd party die rolling application. Actually, I prefer to physically roll the dice myself but have no problem with the game engine random dice roller.

2. I prefer the "hybrid-PBEM" format using facebook, what's app or text for "real-time" air/naval interactions. Confession. I have an older cell phone in real need of replacement which I'll likely do over this Christmas break. It's been over two years since I've made a facebook or what apps post with it. What can I say ... I'm a BOOMER and DAMN proud of it. [:)]

3. I'm not interested in netplay (see 2 above).

4. Optionals. The screen cap below shows my starting position, which is negotiable to some extent.

5. I'd like to play or be involved in two games (one as the allied or an allied MP and a second as the axis or an axis MP). I'd also like to do, or be involved, in an AAR on one or both games.

6. Again, if interested please respond to this post or PM me.

Thanks, Ronnie

[composer99]

What time zone are you in? I'd be inclined to get back into playing multiplayer WiF. I'd be happy to play Allied so you can drive the plot. There are all of two optional rules from the slate you've presented that I'd be inclined to negotiate over, which we can do over PM.

[rkr1958]

ORIGINAL: composer99

What time zone are you in? I'd be inclined to get back into playing multiplayer WiF. I'd be happy to play Allied so you can drive the plot. There are all of two optional rules from the slate you've presented that I'd be inclined to negotiate over, which we can do over PM.

I'm in central.

[composer99]

Okay, I'm in Eastern time, so that seems workable. Shall I send a PM to sort out game details?