6-Player Friendly PBEM Global War

Post descriptions of your brilliant successes and unfortunate demises.

Moderator: Shannon V. OKeets

User avatar
rkr1958
Posts: 30162
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 10:23 am

RE: 6-Player Friendly PBEM Global War

Post by rkr1958 »

Turn 1. Sep/Oct 1939. Axis 03. Japan DOWs & Invades Soviet Asia.

On Japan's surprise invasion impulse they managed to capture 2 RPs and Vladivostok. Now this early capture of Vladivostok led to some interesting rules discussion and play wrt/USSR-Japan compulsory peace optional rule. And more significantly, an eventual ceasefire versus peace. But I'm getting a bit ahead of myself. More on all this later.

Image
Attachments
Slide10.jpg
Slide10.jpg (323.39 KiB) Viewed 1197 times
Ronnie
User avatar
rkr1958
Posts: 30162
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 10:23 am

RE: 6-Player Friendly PBEM Global War

Post by rkr1958 »

Turn 1. Sep/Oct 1939. Axis 03. Japanese Invasion of Soviet Asia.

With Terauchi HQ-I providing supply the Japanese capture the Krasnokamensk RP in Nomonhan.

To the northeast, an out of supply Japanese division captures the Blagovyeshchensk, and is flipped. Also, an out of supply Manchurian MIL corps manages to sever the Soviet Trans-Siberian Railway to Eastern Soviet Asia to Vladivostok.

Image
Attachments
Slide11.jpg
Slide11.jpg (316.15 KiB) Viewed 1197 times
Ronnie
User avatar
rkr1958
Posts: 30162
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 10:23 am

RE: 6-Player Friendly PBEM Global War

Post by rkr1958 »

Turn 1. Sep/Oct 1939. Axis 03. Vladivostok Captured.

The Japanese mount a successful combine amphibious invasion and land assault on Vladivostok. They missed by 1; however, in achieving no losses and flips. Japan did lose a Manchurian MIL and saw 3 of the 6 surviving attackers flipped.

Now here pursued the interesting rules discussion on the USSR Japan Compulsory Peace.
USSR Japan Compulsory Peace [RAW option 50 section 13.7.3]

This optional rule reflects the willingness of both the USSR and Japan to remain at peace with each other during WW II. Though they had been fighting a mostly unreported little war along the Manchurian border for some time prior to Germany's invasion of Poland, they both felt a lot of pressure on other fronts: from Germany for the USSR and from the USA and the Commonwealth for Japan. Agreeing to peace with each other was in both of their self-interests.

If Japan controls Vladivostok during the first war between Japan and the USSR, the Japanese player must agree to a peace if the Soviet player wants one. Similarly, if the USSR controls 3 or more resources that were Japanese controlled at the start of the war, the Soviet player must agree to a peace if the Japanese player
wants one.

In either case, the new Russo-Japanese border is established by the hexes each controls at the time of the compulsory peace. Any pocket of non-coastal hexes wholly surrounded by hexes controlled by the other major power becomes controlled by the major power whose hexes surround them.

The Japanese player was under the assumption that the Soviet player would enforce a compulsory peace during the peace step of turn 1 and that the other two currently controlled Soviet Asian RPs as well as all Trans-Siberian railway hexes in Asia would revert to Japanese control. The Soviet player, perhaps prematurely pointed out that that was a different rule where the Soviets could surrender all of Asia to Japan during any peace step for any reason. The compulsory peace rule, which the Soviets could enforce because Japan had captured Vladivostok, ceded only those hexes captured by Japan or completely surrounded by the Japanese. As the remaining 2 RPs and segment of the Trans-Siberian railway between Blagovyeschensk and Vladivostok were neither Japanese controlled or surrounded they would still remain under Soviet control even though the Soviets had no way of getting the 2 RPs to any factory. In effect, if the Japanese didn't physically capture these hexes then the Soviet could deny the remaining 2 RPs to the Japanese.

It appeared to me at this point that the Soviet player had let "this" cat out of the bad a bit early. But as will be seen later, maybe not. Or maybe. You the readers can decide.

Image
Attachments
Slide12.jpg
Slide12.jpg (241.54 KiB) Viewed 1197 times
Ronnie
User avatar
rkr1958
Posts: 30162
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 10:23 am

RE: 6-Player Friendly PBEM Global War

Post by rkr1958 »

Turn 1. Sep/Oct 1939 (fd). USSR & Japanese Cease Fire.

Because of the "early warning" apparently offered by the Soviets and the mostly fine weather this long turn, Japan was able to capture the remaining 2 Soviet Asian RPs and the segment of the trans-Siberian railway hexes connecting them to Manchuria and Japanese controlled ports. Thus, allowing for the shipment of all 4 captured Soviet Asian RPs to Japanese controlled factories assuming the necessary CPs.

The "early" warning provided by the Soviets likely prevented the Japanese from prematurely railing out the Yamamoto HQ-A and other units to beef up their positions in China. As it stood this turn, it was after the Japanese captured the remaining 2 RPs and needed rail hexes before they railed these units out.

Interestingly, I think the Japanese player fully assumed that the Soviet player would enforce a peace. If so, according to the rules this peace would be a pact and maintained by garrison ratios similar to the Nazi-Soviet pact. Which meant that both the Soviets and Japanese beginning in 1940, assuming a pact in Sep/Oct 1939, would have to maintain the appropriate garrison levels in order for the other side to not to be able to break the pact and go to war again. This peace would also mean that the Soviets would no longer be at war with a major power and would then be required to take only a combine or pass and be only to save 1 (additional) oil per turn.

Apparently the Soviet player had other plans. He leveraged the facts that Japan had begun their pull out of Manchuria and Soviet Asia to China and that since Japan controlled Vladivostok he could wait and force a peace during any turn he wished. He didn't have to force one now. He used these facts to negotiate a ceasefire that would be renegotiated every year and that would not require any garrisons by either side. More significantly the Soviet player would technically remain at war with a major power which would allow him and the CCP to take full land impulses and save as much oil as they wished.

The German player didn't seem at all happy with this ceasefire as this gives the Soviet player significantly flexibility in moving and redeploying his forces in Eastern Europe. Well I guess you can't make everybody happy.

So while the Soviets lost Soviet Asia and 4 RPs they did gain 3 Persian oil, the ability to take full land impulses and no need to maintain any forces in Soviet Asia. Though, 2 of the Persian oil are a bit tricky to get anywhere without CPs in the Persian Gulf. But apparently that's acceptable to the Soviet player.

Image
Attachments
Slide21.jpg
Slide21.jpg (364.63 KiB) Viewed 1197 times
Ronnie
User avatar
rkr1958
Posts: 30162
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 10:23 am

RE: 6-Player Friendly PBEM Global War

Post by rkr1958 »

Turn 1. Sep/Oct (fd). Northern China.

Not much happen in China this turn except for strategic bombing. Though China did through maneuver try to flank the Japanese.

Image
Attachments
Slide22.jpg
Slide22.jpg (373.63 KiB) Viewed 1197 times
Ronnie
User avatar
rkr1958
Posts: 30162
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 10:23 am

RE: 6-Player Friendly PBEM Global War

Post by rkr1958 »

Turn 1. Sep/Oct (fd). Southern China.

While the Soviet player controls the CCP and the US player the Nationalist, which makes for some interesting play in China, one wonders if the Chinese were a bit too passive. Maybe or maybe not. Likely too late now with Japan now in position to transition all his attention to China (for now).

Image
Attachments
Slide23.jpg
Slide23.jpg (361.36 KiB) Viewed 1197 times
Ronnie
User avatar
rkr1958
Posts: 30162
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 10:23 am

RE: 6-Player Friendly PBEM Global War

Post by rkr1958 »

Turn 1. Sep/Oct (end). Destroyed/Repair.

Note. No (additional) ships/subs were damaged. Those in the repair pool at the end of this turn were there at the beginning of this game.

Image
Attachments
Slide16.jpg
Slide16.jpg (190.19 KiB) Viewed 1197 times
Ronnie
User avatar
rkr1958
Posts: 30162
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 10:23 am

RE: 6-Player Friendly PBEM Global War

Post by rkr1958 »

Turn 1. Sep/Oct. Oil, Production & Builds.

Legend
BPL = build points lost in turn
OC = O-chits used in turn
OilN = oil need for reorg
OilU = oil used for reorg
OilC = number of oil points consumed for reorg
PP = # production points available (i.e., after strat, trade & food in flames)
FAC = total # available factories
BP = # build points available (i.e.; after strat & trade)
dBP = difference between BPs available and BPs lost which includes, if applicable, O-chits spent.
OIL = # of saved oil at end of production
BP* = cumulative number of BPs available since start of game.
dBP* = cumulative difference between BPs available and BPs lost which includes, if applicable, O-chits spent.

Image
Attachments
Slide17.jpg
Slide17.jpg (204.76 KiB) Viewed 1197 times
Ronnie
User avatar
rkr1958
Posts: 30162
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 10:23 am

RE: 6-Player Friendly PBEM Global War

Post by rkr1958 »

Turn 1. Sep/Oct (fd). Production Spiral (1/2).

Image
Attachments
Slide18.jpg
Slide18.jpg (185.65 KiB) Viewed 1197 times
Ronnie
User avatar
rkr1958
Posts: 30162
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 10:23 am

RE: 6-Player Friendly PBEM Global War

Post by rkr1958 »

Turn 1. Sep/Oct (fd). Production Spiral (2/2).

Image
Attachments
Slide19.jpg
Slide19.jpg (223.51 KiB) Viewed 1197 times
Ronnie
User avatar
rkr1958
Posts: 30162
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 10:23 am

RE: 6-Player Friendly PBEM Global War

Post by rkr1958 »

Turn 1. Sep/Oct (fd). Victory Points & Score.

A still neutral Italy has the lead with a score of 6. The Japanese player is a distance second with 2 and brining up the rear is the Soviet & French player with -5 and the USA & Nationalist Chinese player with -6.

Image
Attachments
Slide20.jpg
Slide20.jpg (226.61 KiB) Viewed 1201 times
Ronnie
User avatar
Oberost
Posts: 17
Joined: Tue Dec 17, 2019 11:27 am

RE: 6-Player Friendly PBEM Global War

Post by Oberost »

Could you please make the pictures a bit bigger?

Thank you.
User avatar
rkr1958
Posts: 30162
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 10:23 am

RE: 6-Player Friendly PBEM Global War

Post by rkr1958 »

ORIGINAL: Oberost

Could you please make the pictures a bit bigger?

Thank you.
Well I guess I'll abandoned using powerpoint then and just do the best I can with screencaps and Gimp2.
Ronnie
User avatar
Mayhemizer_slith
Posts: 9371
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2011 2:44 am
Location: Finland

RE: 6-Player Friendly PBEM Global War

Post by Mayhemizer_slith »

Looks very interesting, specially the start in the east.
If your attack is going really well, it's an ambush.

-Murphy's war law
User avatar
rkr1958
Posts: 30162
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 10:23 am

RE: 6-Player Friendly PBEM Global War

Post by rkr1958 »

Turn 2. Nov/Dec 1939. Transport & Trade Rules Discussion (1/2).

So maybe the Soviet/French player did get the best of the axis (Japan & German players) by effectively trading the 4 RPs in Soviet Asia for the 3 oil in Persia and getting a ceasefire agreement with the Japanese player in lieu of forcing a peace.

There was a bit of discussion back and forth on two related topics:

(1) Since the USSR was still at war with Japan could CW CPs be used to transport through the Persian Gulf the 2 oil on the coast but not connected by rail? The Soviet player was confident that they could and it turns out that MWiF as coded agrees. That is, I edited in a number of CW CPs in a sandbox copy of our game and confirmed that MWiF allows CW CPs to transport these 2 oil through the Persian Gulf. Apparently there's still some contention with the axis players whether or not this is correct. We'd appreciate any confirmation or contradiction of this for you rules experts wrt/FE rules as written. Otherwise we'll go with how MWiF is coded.

(2) Concerns US entry and trade, which I'll cover in the next post.



Image
Attachments
001PerisanOil.jpg
001PerisanOil.jpg (749.1 KiB) Viewed 1201 times
Ronnie
User avatar
rkr1958
Posts: 30162
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 10:23 am

RE: 6-Player Friendly PBEM Global War

Post by rkr1958 »

Turn 2. Nov/Dec 1939. Transport & Trade Rules Discussion (2/2).

(2) Trade to and from the USSR. What I found in the sandbox edit surprised all of us.

So, last turn the US player elected option 9, "Resources to China". Not surprisingly, the CW, France and USSR can now give resources to China. What's a bit interesting is that both the CW and France are limited to a max of 5 but the Soviets aren't limited. I can increase the Soviet resources counter to 40, 50 or even higher. Not that any player in their right mind would send more that 1 or 2 RPs to China. So this finding I would classify as minor. That is, the number of resources the Soviets can lend to China in unlimited.

The next finding; however, isn't and we're wondering if it's correct. The USSR is now able to lend up to 1 RP and 1 BP to the France and the CW. And both France and the CW is also now able to lend 1 RP and 1 BP to the Soviets. Of course, subject to this lending only going one-way. That is, for example, if the USSR sent 1 RP to France then while this agreement is in effect France couldn't send 1 RP back to the USSR. Anyway, the question is since Option 19, "Resources to the USSR" hasn't been chosen is this correct? Again the Soviet player feels this is indeed correct the the axis players (especially Germany & Japan) are feeling a little dupe.

Image
Attachments
002USE.jpg
002USE.jpg (488.59 KiB) Viewed 1201 times
Ronnie
User avatar
rkr1958
Posts: 30162
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 10:23 am

RE: 6-Player Friendly PBEM Global War

Post by rkr1958 »

ORIGINAL: Oberost

Could you please make the pictures a bit bigger?

Thank you.
By the way, how's my picture size now? [;)]
Ronnie
User avatar
Orm
Posts: 31114
Joined: Sat May 03, 2008 7:53 pm
Location: Sweden

RE: 6-Player Friendly PBEM Global War

Post by Orm »

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

The next finding; however, isn't and we're wondering if it's correct. The USSR is now able to lend up to 1 RP and 1 BP to the France and the CW. And both France and the CW is also now able to lend 1 RP and 1 BP to the Soviets. Of course, subject to this lending only going one-way. That is, for example, if the USSR sent 1 RP to France then while this agreement is in effect France couldn't send 1 RP back to the USSR. Anyway, the question is since Option 19, "Resources to the USSR" hasn't been chosen is this correct? Again the Soviet player feels this is indeed correct the the axis players (especially Germany & Japan) are feeling a little dupe.
Since USSR is no longer neutral they can indeed give, or receive, 1 RP, and 1 BP. More can be given if option 19 is played.
Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb -- they're often students, for heaven's sake. - Terry Pratchett

A government is a body of people; usually, notably, ungoverned. - Quote from Firefly
User avatar
Orm
Posts: 31114
Joined: Sat May 03, 2008 7:53 pm
Location: Sweden

RE: 6-Player Friendly PBEM Global War

Post by Orm »

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

ORIGINAL: Oberost

Could you please make the pictures a bit bigger?

Thank you.
By the way, how's my picture size now? [;)]
Pictures are now good. Before they were a pain on my eyes. (Although I can not speak for the original poster) [:)]
Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb -- they're often students, for heaven's sake. - Terry Pratchett

A government is a body of people; usually, notably, ungoverned. - Quote from Firefly
User avatar
Orm
Posts: 31114
Joined: Sat May 03, 2008 7:53 pm
Location: Sweden

RE: 6-Player Friendly PBEM Global War

Post by Orm »

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

(1) Since the USSR was still at war with Japan could CW CPs be used to transport through the Persian Gulf the 2 oil on the coast but not connected by rail? The Soviet player was confident that they could and it turns out that MWiF as coded agrees. That is, I edited in a number of CW CPs in a sandbox copy of our game and confirmed that MWiF allows CW CPs to transport these 2 oil through the Persian Gulf. Apparently there's still some contention with the axis players whether or not this is correct. We'd appreciate any confirmation or contradiction of this for you rules experts wrt/FE rules as written. Otherwise we'll go with how MWiF is coded.
MWIF, and the Soviet player, are correct in my humble opinion. The CW CPs can indeed be used to transport the Soviet oil in Persia.
Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb -- they're often students, for heaven's sake. - Terry Pratchett

A government is a body of people; usually, notably, ungoverned. - Quote from Firefly
Post Reply

Return to “After Action Report”