6-Player Friendly PBEM Global War

[rkr1958]

Naval Combat. Sub Combat Win/Tie/Loss Breakdown.

NOTE: Sub "combat" where subs did not find by escorts/ASW patrols did was captured under naval air or surface actions. So, it's not surprising that the win % for the aggressor is so high. For future games, I probably should capture the case for subs not finding but having to fight a naval air or surface action as type sub combat, subtype naval air or surface and remove them from type naval air and surface.

[rkr1958]

Naval Combat. Port Strike Win/Tie/Loss Breakdown.

[rkr1958]

Naval Combat. Intercept (Attempt) & Shore Bombardment Summary.

Note:
(1) # Att = number intercept attempts of naval units moving through a sea area.
(2) # Succ = number intercept attempts that succeeded and that did NOT result in combat (i.e., intercepted naval units stopped and did not attempt to fight through).
(3) AvgF = average number of factors provided by shore bombardment after terrain, sea box and weather applied.

[rkr1958]

I think this pretty much captures summaries of all the data I logged. However; I'll take requests if there's something thing(s) folks want or that I may have overlooked.

Again, we encourage folks to freely comment (positive, negative or indifferent) on any aspect of this AAR and game played.

[Courtenay]

I am curious if one side was luckier than the other, or if luck really did average out. This can reasonably be done in two places: Meaningful land combat and naval search rolls.

By meaningful land combat I mean land combat that it is possible for the attacker to have all attackers flipped.

The very high odds combats are not interesting because we all know that when we make a +21 attack, we always roll 20s and our opponents always roll 2s when they make a +21 attack.

Fir searches, just a straight average. One can imagine much more refined analysis, but it is not worth it. Better to spend the time playing another game!

[Angeldust2]

Summary Breakdown of the 2927 Logged Events.

Interesting, that there are both significantly more naval and air combats than land combats.

[Angeldust2]

Land Combat Summary

The # of land combats won is very much the same by each MP, if we take into account the overwhelming superiority of USA and Soviet in the last turns, when they can spend an O-chit every impulse.

[Angeldust2]

What counts as a win in an attack? Is capturing the hex it? Or is it if the defender takes more losses than the attacker?

Capturing the hex. More specifically eliminating the defender from the hex either by destruction or retreat. One could choose not to advance and that would still be classified as a win as long as the attacker could have advanced into the hex.

Also, to qualify as a win the attacker must have had at least 1 surviving unit that could, whether it chooses to or not, advance into the attacked and now vacated enemy hex. So, for example:

(1) A modified roll of 22 on the assault CRT for 1 attacker vs 2 defenders holding a city hex, which would result in the elimination of the 1 attacker & 2 defenders would be classified as a LOSS.
(2) A modified roll of 14 on the assault CRT for 4 attackers vs 1 defender holding a city hex, which would result in the elimination of 3 of the 4 attackers & the 1 defender would be classified as a WIN. Though a Pyrrhic victory never the less but still a win.

I agree, that is a good definition of a win in MWIF.

[Angeldust2]

Land Combat. HQ Offensive, Defensive Support & O-Chit (Doubling) Summary.

Again, HQ Support have been employed surprisingly evenly by Axis and Allies. The better on average tactical ratings of Axis HQ make a difference.

[Angeldust2]

O-Chits. Summary.

I suggest to replace "Bought" by "Spent" to avoid confusion.

[Angeldust2]

Weather & Actions. Axis.

Note: Got off of my home keys in the note section for Germany's O-chit played on turn 2, impulse 1 (global impulse #13). It was paired with Rundstedt HQ-A.

The first turn (39SO) weather was an incredible kickstarter for Axis. 6 impulses, almost all in clear weather, was a strong foundation for an Axis success, both in Europe and Asia. Also, it seems there were not many other turns with surprisingly many impulses.

[Angeldust2]

Weather & Actions. Allied.

Same here, no longer than expected turns, except 39ND. So the first two turns were also the only longer than expected ones, a very important advantage for the Axis in this game.

[Angeldust2]

Actions Summary.

I was a bit surprised at how close the total number of impulses between the axis and allies were. While not explicitly included in this table, the total number of impulses per side can be deduced from Italy or Japan for the axis and CW, France, USA or USSR for the allies. That is, total number of actions taken for one of these given MPs, which lasted the entire game, equals number of axis, or allied, impulses in the game. The axis got 124 of the 244 (50.8%) total impulses and the allies 120 (49.2%).

I am surprised, the Axis got four more impulses than Allies in total. Even if this equals only a difference in +0.8/-0.8%, I had rather expected an Allied lead. Probably the Axis was husbanding their initial Reroll capability very carefully and succeeded in keeping the initiative for a long time?

[Angeldust2]

Actions Summary.

I was a bit surprised at how close the total number of impulses between the axis and allies were. While not explicitly included in this table, the total number of impulses per side can be deduced from Italy or Japan for the axis and CW, France, USA or USSR for the allies. That is, total number of actions taken for one of these given MPs, which lasted the entire game, equals number of axis, or allied, impulses in the game. The axis got 124 of the 244 (50.8%) total impulses and the allies 120 (49.2%).

I think, to include CCP as a MP with own impulses in this table can be very misleading. For example, it looks like there were 2 air impulses in the whole game, but actually it was only 1, for Soviet.
Talking about air impulses: Either all players in this game were underemploying them or air impulses are comparatively too weak, so that they are no good use in general. That neither Germany, nor CW and USA with their huge air fleets needed them, is significant.

[Angeldust2]

Impulses Per Turn Summary

The numbers in the last 2 columns of this table were either take directly or derived data from the table on page 21, Vol 1 of the player's manual.

Interesting table. We see, the Axis had basically just 3 impulses more than Allies, and all of them in JF turns, when it matters the least.
Also this table highlights again the incredible luck the Axis had in the starting turn 39SO: They got 6 impulses while only 3,5 were to be expected per side! Almost two times as much as to be expected. And almost all in fine weather and when it really mattered for the Axis. I wish to get such weather in my next game as Axis ...

[Angeldust2]

AC Breakdown: Ground Strike, Ground Support & Strategic.

NOTE: (1) # = number of missions logged.
(2) For Ground Strike, Flipped is the total number of units (ground and/or air) flipped, and Avg is the average number flipped per strike.
(3) For Ground Support, Total is the total number of factors provided to offense or defense and includes weather & terrain effects. Avg is the average provided per mission.
(4) For Strategic, Total is the total number of PPs and/or Oil knocked out. Avg is the average per mission.

I was surprised that for ground strikes both the axis and allies, on average, produced 0.9 flips per strike. I though it would be higher. I also though it would be higher for the USA, which was 1 per strike.

The outstanding number in this table is the success rate of ITA GStr. More than double than the average!

[Angeldust2]

Naval Combat Mission Count Summary.

For naval combat I broke the logged data into 9 naval missions:
(1) NavAir = Naval Air battle
(2) Surface = Surface Action battle
(3) Sub = Sub battle
(4) PSTK = port strike
(5) SB = shore bombardment
(6) Avd/D = Naval combat all together avoided by either using 4 SPs to avoid or subs (only present) not committing (i.e., diving to avoid).
(7) SrchFail = both searches failed to find
(8) Intcpt = attempt to intercept moving naval units
(9) Reorg = reorg of naval units either by HQ, TRS, Amph, Queens.

Actual naval combat (i.e., Naval Air, Surface Action, Sub & Port Strikes) were further broken down by aggressor and defender.

In this table, the numbers for surface combat and sub combat don't match exactly between Agrressor and Defender, whereas the numbers for NavAir and PStr do match exactly.

[rkr1958]

Naval Combat Mission Count Summary.

For naval combat I broke the logged data into 9 naval missions:
(1) NavAir = Naval Air battle
(2) Surface = Surface Action battle
(3) Sub = Sub battle
(4) PSTK = port strike
(5) SB = shore bombardment
(6) Avd/D = Naval combat all together avoided by either using 4 SPs to avoid or subs (only present) not committing (i.e., diving to avoid).
(7) SrchFail = both searches failed to find
(8) Intcpt = attempt to intercept moving naval units
(9) Reorg = reorg of naval units either by HQ, TRS, Amph, Queens.

Actual naval combat (i.e., Naval Air, Surface Action, Sub & Port Strikes) were further broken down by aggressor and defender.

In this table, the numbers for surface combat and sub combat don't match exactly between Agrressor and Defender, whereas the numbers for NavAir and PStr do match exactly.

Nice catch! They should I think. Chalk it up to an "accounting" error on my part. I compiled those tables using EXCEL's filtering function, pencil, paper and calculator on the 2927 war log records. In the end my checkbook didn't balance exactly but close enough for me not to worry.

[lucliu]

What a great AAR, especially the data sheets, this is the best AAR I have ever seen!
Congrats on your masterpiece, Ronnie!

[rkr1958]

What a great AAR, especially the data sheets, this is the best AAR I have ever seen!
Congrats on your masterpiece, Ronnie!

Thank you. Glad you enjoyed it.