A Competitive GW (Solo) Scenario by the Numbers.

[rkr1958]

Turn 13. Sep/Oct 1941. Allied #14. Atlantic. RN. French.

14-AL-Atlantic-No-SRC-No-CBT-CL.png (10.96 KiB) Viewed 379 times

14-AL-Atlantic-North-Atlantic-NS-NC.png (216.59 KiB) Viewed 379 times

14-AL-Atlantic-Cape-St-Vincent-NS-NC.png (224.04 KiB) Viewed 379 times

[rkr1958]

Turn 13. Sep/Oct 1941. Allied #14. Med. Italian Coast.

14-AL-Med-It-Coast-CL.png (10.07 KiB) Viewed 378 times

14-AL-Med-Italian-Coast-NC-1.png (236.27 KiB) Viewed 378 times

[rkr1958]

Turn 13. Sep/Oct 1941. Allied #14. Med. West Med.

14-AL-Med-West-Med-CL.png (34.79 KiB) Viewed 378 times

14-AL-Med-West-Med-NC-1.png (277.77 KiB) Viewed 378 times

14-AL-Med-West-Med-NC-1b.png (204.89 KiB) Viewed 378 times

14-AL-Med-West-Med-NC-1c.png (212.79 KiB) Viewed 378 times

[rkr1958]

Turn 13. Sep/Oct 1941. Allied #14. Med.

14-AL-Med-LM-CL.png (15.24 KiB) Viewed 375 times

14-AL-Med.png (2.17 MiB) Viewed 375 times

[rkr1958]

Turn 13. Sep/Oct 1941. Allied #14. Asian Theater. USSR.

Strategic Bombing. Seoul, Korea.
(1) With a 2 fighter wing escort and an air-to-air advantage the Red airforce manages to get mauled by 2 IJN carrier air groups.
(2) This seemingly loss risk strategic bombing raid against Seoul cost the USSR 10 BPs!

14-AL-Asian-STRAT-Korea-CL.png (25.13 KiB) Viewed 375 times

14-AL-Asian-STRAT-A2A-Korea.png (294.08 KiB) Viewed 375 times

[rkr1958]

Turn 13. Sep/Oct 1941. Allied #14. Asian Theater. Manchuria. Korea.

14-AL-Asian-USSR-CL.png (26.37 KiB) Viewed 375 times

14-AL-Asian-Manchuria-Korea.png (1.61 MiB) Viewed 375 times

[rkr1958]

Turn 13. Sep/Oct 1941. Allied #14. Asian Theater. Taiyuan, China.

(1) How did the CCP overlook IJA ground support!
(2) This oversight cost the CCP 1 MIL army & 1 cav corps.
(3) While the BP loss (4 BPs) isn't that bad it's the loss of the units; especially given last turn CCP loses!

14-AL-Asian-Taiyuan-CL.png (37.49 KiB) Viewed 372 times

14-AL-Asian-GSPT-Taiyuan.png (368.05 KiB) Viewed 372 times

14-AL-Asian-LC-Taiyuan.png (277.74 KiB) Viewed 372 times

[rkr1958]

Turn 13. Sep/Oct 1941. Allied #14. Asian Theater. China.

14-AL-Asian-China-LM-CL.png (13.07 KiB) Viewed 371 times

14-AL-Asian-China.png (1.53 MiB) Viewed 371 times

[rkr1958]

Turn 13. Sep/Oct 1941. Allied #14. Reflections (1/2). USSR.

(1) This was a brutal impulse for both the Soviets and CCP; but for very different reasons.

(2) For the Soviets, a good strategic bombing run turned costly.

(3) The Soviets had 2 bombers escorted by 2 fighters vs 2 inferior IJN CAGs (+1 allied vs -1 axis air-to-air).

(4) In addition to having the fighter advantage in the air, the Soviets also had 50% chance of knocking out a Japanese production BP.

(5) But, that's not the way it went!

(6) Because of bad luck, or good luck if you're on the Japanese side, both Soviet L3 bombers were shot down & their pilots killed (10 BPs total of loss).

(7) If given the choice as the Soviets I'd make the same move and, without simulating or running the specific odds, I'd say more often than not the Soviets would come out ahead in BPs destroyed/knocked out vs BPs lost.

(8) This was not such a case, the Soviets lost 10 BPs to Japan's 2 BPs; not a good exchange even for the Soviets!

(9) We've all been there; and on both sides of there; that is, on the receiving end of an unlucky roll and also on the giving end of a lucky roll.

(10) I've been gaming long enough that when that happens I neither curse by back luck or "praise" my good luck.

(11) Especially; when playing against another human opponent (other than myself).

(12) Personally, I think it's bad gaming manners to rub in a lucky result; unless in jest to a long time friend; but definitely not to a gaming partner I only know over the internet.

(13) And when it comes to being on the sharp end of bad luck, I don't complain because I don't want to give my gaming partner the satisfaction or knowledge of that I'm on "tilt".

(14) One reason I LOVE MWIF is that one, if they wish, can make accurate calculations (or assessments) of risk/reward before committing most combat decisions.

(15) Personally, if I done such, I'm at ease with whatever the result is because I know that's how probability works.

(16) So, while I don't like it (as the Soviets), their brutal impulse, I'm at peace with it because sometimes in gaming you get extremes.

14-AL-Asian-STRAT-Korea-CL.png (25.13 KiB) Viewed 341 times

14-AL-Asian-STRAT-A2A-Korea.png (294.08 KiB) Viewed 343 times

[rkr1958]

Turn 13. Sep/Oct 1941. Allied #14. Reflections (2/2). CCP.

(1) While I'm at peace with the Soviet's bad luck, I'm NOT at peace with the CCP bad play!

(2) The CCP overlooked the possibility of Japanese defensive ground support, which materialized and turn an automatic assault at +24A to liberate Taiyuan, China to a "nail biting" +11A with a CCP 3-stack, including Mao HQ-I, assaulting.

(3) Though the very worse luck result of 14 (i.e., 2% 2D10=3) was avoided, the actual result of 2D10=5 (LCR=16) & loss of 2 of 3 CCP 3-stack attacking happened!

(4) Looking at the odds this was not outlandishly bad luck; because the CCP did have a 14% chance of losing 2 units (2% losing 3 & 23% losing 1).

(5) If I, on behalf of the CCP, had properly accounted for the Japanese defensive ground support in planning I would NOT have made the assault.

(6) But I failed to do so and the CCP paid the price.

(7) In my planning both in solo and against another human opponent, I often use a technique I call wargaming.

(8) My implementation of such is to save the active game file to a temporary file, generally called wg.GAM, and play out my planning by advancing though the various phases (e.g., land moves, HQ support, ground support, land combat declaration) to get an accurate picture of the odds (in this example for land combat).

(9) On behalf of the CCP I was figuratively kicking myself for such in this case; in which case I would have "discovered" through MWIF implementation the Japanese ground support before OFFICALLY committing to the assault.

(10) Was I so brilliant subconsciously as the Japanese that I place a deterrence to a CCP assault to take Taiyuan defended by a OOS & flipped MIL?

(11) Was I so brilliant subconsciously that I laid a trap that the CCP walked straight into and lost 2 more of their precious units?

(12) To be honest, if this was against another human opponent with me as the Japanese I definitely would take credit for such; but secretly thanking my lucky stars and MWIF for it happening.

(13) Processing all this over the past day has got me thinking about two things.

(14) First, not only does MWIF enforce the rules >99% time correctly, it also enforces decisions on all feasible actions, or reactions.

(15) If I were playing this solo AAR over vassal, instead of MWIF, since I missed the possibility of defensive ground support as the CCP I would have also missed it as the Soviets and the CCP would have gone through with an erroneous automatic assault.

(16) This fact got me thinking about a second thing related to this oversight and that's how I plan to play solo.

(17) Previously, I stated that if I had "wargamed" this assault I would have discovered the flaw (i.e., defensive Japanese ground support) and would NOT have attempted the assault.

(18) But for uncertainty and more chances to surprise myself solo, I think I'm going to "outlaw" wargaming for planning and only allow it for verifying rules.

(19) A recent example of me using wargmaing to verify rules was last axis impulse in which I wanted to check if emergency HQ supply could be used to supply air units (for Jp strategic bombing).

(20) I quickly found that it could NOT be used (rules say HQ emergency supply can be used to supply land units).

(21) I could have checked the rules instead; but even if I done so, I probably would have still wargamed it to doubly check and verify how MWIF is programmed.

(22) Other uses of wargmaing in solo I'm going to allow is to see if moves (land, air, sea) are valid or possible; technically that's verifying rules too.

(23) But; when it comes to combat planning I'm gong to outlaw wargmaing for competitive solo play (not competitive multi-player play!) in order to introduce more "reactive surprise".

(24) And, to force more careful planning or pay the price as the CCP has done this impulse!

14-AL-Asian-Taiyuan-CL.png (37.49 KiB) Viewed 340 times

14-AL-Asian-GSPT-Taiyuan.png (368.05 KiB) Viewed 342 times

14-AL-Asian-LC-Taiyuan.png (277.74 KiB) Viewed 342 times

[rkr1958]

Turn 13. Sep/Oct 1941. End of Turn.

(1) Turn ends on D10=3 (<8 needed).
(2) 1 new partisan in French Indo China.

99-EOT-Partisan-CL.png (39.83 KiB) Viewed 330 times

99-Partisans.png (60.68 KiB) Viewed 330 times

99-Asia-FIC-Partisan.png (1.62 MiB) Viewed 330 times

[rkr1958]

Turn 13. Sep/Oct 1941. End of Turn.

Nazi-Soviet Pact. Chit Draws/Moves.

99-NSP-Chit-Draws-Moves.png (40.22 KiB) Viewed 328 times

US Entry. Chit Draw. Options.

99-US-Entry-CL.png (13.23 KiB) Viewed 328 times

99-US-Entry.png (185.56 KiB) Viewed 328 times

[rkr1958]

Turn 13. Sep/Oct 1941. End of Turn.

Destroyed, Damaged.

99-BP-Report.png (21.31 KiB) Viewed 327 times

99-Destroyed.png (51.76 KiB) Viewed 327 times

99-Dry-Dock.png (109.77 KiB) Viewed 327 times

[Orm]

(19) A recent example of me using wargmaing to verify rules was last axis impulse in which I wanted to check if emergency HQ supply could be used to supply air units (for Jp strategic bombing).

(20) I quickly found that it could NOT be used (rules say HQ emergency supply can be used to supply land units).

(21) I could have checked the rules instead; but even if I done so, I probably would have still wargamed it to doubly check and verify how MWIF is programmed.

I am missing where the rule says can be used to supply land units. I see only units mentioned so I would have assumed that air units could benefit as well (according to rules). Although I might be mistaken.

However, I am aware that MWIF does not allow this. I always assumed that it is because the program advance past this step if it doesn't find any in supply fighters that can intercept. Thus there is no opportunity to activate the emergency supply.

I think I reported it as a bug a long time ago (or maybe it was someone else).



Cut from RAC: 2.4.3 Out of supply
....
Option 13: (Emergency HQ Supply) Non-HQ units that are out of supply can operate as if they were in
supply this impulse if they can trace a basic supply path to an organized HQ they may co-operate with. You can only
do this with as many units as the HQ’s reorganization value. You must announce the HQ providing emergency
supply before any unit can gain this benefit. The HQ becomes disorganized after the land combat step. An HQ may
not provide emergency HQ supply during the impulse(s) it is surprised. [Clarifications. The decision to use
Emergency HQ Supply can be made at any time - Mar. 11, 1998. To receive the benefit a unit has to trace a basic
supply path to the Emergency Supply HQ. The basic supply path limit of 4 hexes also applies to notional units when
they are using emergency HQ supply - July 5, 2007. Note that the HQ itself is out of supply, since otherwise all the
units that can trace a basic supply path to it would already be in supply and have no need for Emergency HQ Supply.
Using Emergency HQ Supply does not (indeed, can not) put the HQ itself back in supply - Nov. 29, 2007.]

[rkr1958]

(19) A recent example of me using wargmaing to verify rules was last axis impulse in which I wanted to check if emergency HQ supply could be used to supply air units (for Jp strategic bombing).

(20) I quickly found that it could NOT be used (rules say HQ emergency supply can be used to supply land units).

(21) I could have checked the rules instead; but even if I done so, I probably would have still wargamed it to doubly check and verify how MWIF is programmed.

I am missing where the rule says can be used to supply land units. I see only units mentioned so I would have assumed that air units could benefit as well (according to rules). Although I might be mistaken.

However, I am aware that MWIF does not allow this. I always assumed that it is because the program advance past this step if it doesn't find any in supply fighters that can intercept. Thus there is no opportunity to activate the emergency supply.

I think I reported it as a bug a long time ago (or maybe it was someone else).



Cut from RAC: 2.4.3 Out of supply
....
Option 13: (Emergency HQ Supply) Non-HQ units that are out of supply can operate as if they were in
supply this impulse if they can trace a basic supply path to an organized HQ they may co-operate with. You can only
do this with as many units as the HQ’s reorganization value. You must announce the HQ providing emergency
supply before any unit can gain this benefit. The HQ becomes disorganized after the land combat step. An HQ may
not provide emergency HQ supply during the impulse(s) it is surprised. [Clarifications. The decision to use
Emergency HQ Supply can be made at any time - Mar. 11, 1998. To receive the benefit a unit has to trace a basic
supply path to the Emergency Supply HQ. The basic supply path limit of 4 hexes also applies to notional units when
they are using emergency HQ supply - July 5, 2007. Note that the HQ itself is out of supply, since otherwise all the
units that can trace a basic supply path to it would already be in supply and have no need for Emergency HQ Supply.
Using Emergency HQ Supply does not (indeed, can not) put the HQ itself back in supply - Nov. 29, 2007.]

(1) Orm, you're 100% correct.

(2) Maybe I dreamt that only land units can receive emergency HQ supply.

(3) If I had known the correct rule I would have enforced emergency supply to Japanese air units myself and used them from 2 strategic bombing raids against 2 Chinese factories.

(4) However; in a weird twist of fate; MWIF incorrectly not allowing emergency HQ support to air units AND me not knowing the exact rule actually worked very much in the favor of Japan.

(5) The 2 air units that I would have supplied and used for strategic bombing were the only 2 air units with range to reach Taiyuan, China for defensive ground support the next allied impulse.

(6) My initial plan was to use emergency supply with Yamamoto for the air units since he was going to move anyway (and flip) to get supply in the snow & put all unit within 3-hexes of him back in supply.

(7) This included the 2 air units that erroneously did not qualify for emergency supply and thus weren't used for strategic bombing.

(8) This weird twist of faith cost the CCP 2 land units (MIL army & Cav corps) & 4 BPs vs max 2 BP, and expected 0.9 BP, lost from the 2 strategic bombing raids that were never flown.

(9) Is MWIF messing with me? I mean, is it messing with the CCP?

[rkr1958]

Turn 13. Sep/Oct 1941. End of Turn. Use Oil.

99-USE-Oil-CL.png (27.94 KiB) Viewed 292 times

99-Use-Oil-Japan.png (325.43 KiB) Viewed 292 times

[rkr1958]

Turn 13. Sep/Oct 1941. End of Turn. Isolated and/or Unoiled Disorganized Units.

99-Unoiled-Isolated.png (307.07 KiB) Viewed 265 times

[rkr1958]

Turn 13. Sep/Oct 1941. End of Turn. Production.

Final Production Reports.

99-Production-CL.png (38.72 KiB) Viewed 260 times

Production Related WAR Directives.

99-WAR-Production.png (24.78 KiB) Viewed 260 times

Economic Reports.

99-Economic-Report.png (100.33 KiB) Viewed 260 times

O-Chit Production WAR Directives.

99-WAR-O-Chits.png (15.21 KiB) Viewed 260 times

[rkr1958]

Turn 13. Sep/Oct 1941. End of Turn. Surrender.

99-Asian-Surrender-China-to-Japan-CL.png (5.9 KiB) Viewed 260 times

99-Asian-Surrender-China-to-Japan.png (1.59 MiB) Viewed 260 times

[rkr1958]

Turn 13. Sep/Oct 1941. End of Turn.

Production (1/2).

99-Production-1.png (221.64 KiB) Viewed 257 times

99-Production-2.png (223.47 KiB) Viewed 257 times

99-Production-3.png (213.17 KiB) Viewed 257 times

99-Production-4.png (143.62 KiB) Viewed 257 times