PBEM Naval Action Phase

[Shannon V. OKeets]

PBEM Naval Action Phase

If you haven’t already, you should read through the postings in the PBEM Overview thread to get a sense of how the communications between players will be performed.

This thread focuses on minimizing the number of emails needed to implement naval combat decisions. Here are the different subphases of naval movement and combat, in order:
------------------------------------------------------
1 Port attacks (Rules 11.2)
2 Naval air missions (Rules 11.3)
3 Naval movement (Rules 11.4)
3.1 Task forces (Rules 11.4.3)
3.2 Naval transport (Rules 11.4.5.)
3.3 Naval interception (Rules 11.4.6)
4 Naval combat initiated by phasing player (Rules 11.5)
4.1 Adding naval air units - by phasing player (Rules 11.5.3)
4.2 Adding naval air units - by non-phasing player (Rules 11.5.3)
4.3 Committing units (subs) (Rules 11.5.4)
4.4 Searching (Rules 11.5.5)
4.5 Surprise points (Rules 11.5.6)
4.6 Choosing combat type (Rules 11.5.7)
4.7 Surface naval combat (Rules 11.5.8)
4.8 Naval air combat (Rules 11.5.9)
4.9 Submarine combat (Rules 11.5.10)
4.10 Naval combat abort by phasing player (Rules 11.5.11)
4.11 Naval combat abort by non-phasing player (Rules 11.5.11)
5 Naval combat initiated by non-phasing player (Rules 11.6)

If I have forgotten something or got some things wrong, let me know.
-------------------------------------------------

Ideally, we want the phasing player to go through this sequence without having the non-phasing player read and answer several emails. Basically, let the phasing player just move all his naval units and resolve the combats. Regrettably, the non-phasing player can be heavily involved in almost all of these if he wants to be.

Defending against port attacks (item 1) is discussed in the thread on PBEM Air Action Phase. Items 2, 3, 3.1, 3.2, 4.1, and 4.10 are all done by the phasing player.

There are 3 distinct ways naval combat can occur: (1) the phasing player moves into a sea area, is intercepted by the non-phasing player, and decides to “fight his way through”, (2) the phasing player tries to initiate combat and is successful in his search roll, and (3) the non-phasing player tries to initiate combat and is successful in his search roll. For our purposes we can treat these as a single topic (items 3.3, 4, and 5). However, item 3.3 and 5 give the non-phasing player to option of trying to initiate combat or not. Item 3.3 Naval interception is one of the big problems to solve. Incy has given us a start on this and the other hard problems in performing naval actions for the non-phasing player (see the last post listed below).

All of the other aspects of naval combat (items 4.2 => 4.9 and 4.11) are hard. I think we will need a system of rules that the non-phasing player can control by setting parameters. Since reading Incy’s post, I have been working off and on to develop one. Hopefully I will complete a first draft this weekend.

Comments?

P.S. I have attached below parts of some posts that appeared in PBEM Overview and seem relevant to this thread.
=====================
How to spend surprise points in a naval combat and if you want to abort it.
=====================
Based on experience this is the area which is most difficult to deal with, since it takes ages to build new ships and a sunk CV or Transport loaded with troops have a big impact on the game. Maybe you also could mark sea areas where you don't want the AI to handle sea battles, and instruct your fleet to intercept units that are weaker/equal/marginally stronger than your fleet.
=====================
The part that I am avoiding is discussing the Naval combats since each moving Naval stack could involve multiple movement * intercept attempt * movement *intercept * pick sea box * add air units * do combats * pick casualties * rinse * repeat phases, each of which requires player input. It may be possible to set up some scripting for the simple decisions but it will be a decision tree which puts a Banyan vine to shame.
======================
The settings I describe are my suggestions for what you term standing orders. Based on experience, I do not think a limited toolbox of quite explicit standing orders will work well. There's just to much the phasing player can do, and way to often something will be left out/be extremely badly covered by explicit standing orders (an ochit, a paradrop, a lucky flip or whatever else can completely change what a good strategy is). That's based on experience, I played several PBEM games where I spent as much as 20-30 minutes/impulse writing explicit-type orders, and still more often than not something would pop up that made a mess of my orders. So gradually, I ended up realizing that I got my intercepts handled a lot better if I left more to the phasing player, and just gave general instructions. Whenever I did give explicit orders, they were sill as general as possible, and the opposing player was always allowed to override my orders if a reasonable justification could be made.

Thus, I think standing orders should be handled by something resembling a quite autonomous, fullblown AI capable of making reasonable choices on its own, but with a few some options to overrule or "push the AI in the right directions".

To elaborate on the flags/variables I suggested (and which are loosely based on the types of orders I found it useful to give my opponents:

-acceptableLossRatio(in expected lost BP vs. inflicted BP) By this I mean how happy I am to take losses/attrition. My opponent will use this to help decide for me whether or not to initiate battles/abort battles, plus also how to behave in naval battles (i.e. increase enemy losses or reduce own losses, think shortterm or longterm, what boxes to pick). For example, as Italy I usually let my opponent know that I need my expected losses to be about 0.5-0.6 of enemy expected losses for me to "want" to fight a battle. My CW usually has an acceptable ratio of 1.5 or higher. Of course, my opponent will also consider other issues than wether or not the attrition is within what I want (such as maintaining presence & supply) and will have to combine pros and cons and make a best judgement.

-maintaining<Unittype>ReserveHappiness (how much to keep back) By this I try to assign a value to how important I find it to maintain a reserve of some unittype, for instance bombers. If I make this a high value, my opponent should justify it well if he commits all my bombers. So I let him know that he can use some, but preferably don't use all.

-agressiveness By this I let my opponent know my stance on initiating battles. If I let him know I'm agressive, I'll expect him to intercept air missions more often/stronger, be more liberal with ground support, etc. In a nutshell, I tell him he's more free to commit "consumable" resources (i.e. planes, HQ support, etc that can only be used once befor it will be unavailable for the remainder of the turn. A good time to be agressive is when you have or can hope to achieve air superiority by drawing out enemy FTR, or it's late in the turn and you have oil to spend and feel your air bases are fairly safe from conquest.

-<unittype>Highthened/LoweredValue (care less/more about keeping certain units alive) I use this to let my opponent know what units I value the most, both for my own units and for enemy units. For example, I will often say to my opponent that he should be careful about risking my TRS and/or cp, or my SUBs or my CVs, or I could announce that CW BBs/LS are to be considered "ammunition". My opponent will then consider units to have higher/lower BP values than printed

-holdGroundStance (fighting a mobile defence vs. trying to hold the line) I use this to let my opponent know how I feel about such things as getting my units flipped, comitting short range air & HQ support(all of wich are much less preferable in a mobile defence)

-missionTypeImportance (lets AI know what enemy mission types you worry more about) I use this to let my opponent know better where to use my sparse units, particularly FTR cover. Sometimes I'm worried about ground strikes, other times a looming paradrop is more of a concern.
Yet other times I feel I have good enough control to intercept them pesky strat-bombers, and sometimes I'm definately not in the mood for port strikes or air transports.

Players could also be allowed to assign simple flags (more/less value, save this unit, etc) to hexes/areas/individual units. I use this to designate important hexes, for instance I sometimes reserve air units for reaction to particular sea boxes. Other times I let my opponent know some hexes I definately don't want to allow missions against and/or want to use my bombers to try to save, other times I let my oponent know that he shouldn't waste resources on certain places, for instance units left to their fate.
========================

[Greyshaft]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
Thus, I think standing orders should be handled by something resembling a quite autonomous, fullblown AI capable of making reasonable choices on its own, but with a few some options to overrule or "push the AI in the right directions".

I completely agree. Maybe we could generate a list of a dozen mission-specific parameters. eg

Sea Box Parameter when intercepted:
• normal - Highest sea box consistent with getting to the nominated destination.
• stealth - Low sea box number and run away as soon as possible
• aggressive - High sea box and fight to the <parameter % casualties> death
  
  Air Support Parameter:
• None.
• Any available unassigned air unit within range
• Any air unit even if that means overriding an existing air mission planned for later in the turn.

I'm not sure about allowing too firm control over setting "acceptable" loss limits or protecting specific ships. I don't think Hitler would have found the loss of the Bismarck "acceptable", but he rolled the dice and took his lumps. I think that once you send out your fleet you need to accept that Lady Luck has more control than you do. Maybe provide greater group protection to Carriers and Transports but I can't see how you can protect individual ships against air attack.

[c92nichj]

As stated before I believe this will be a tricky area. Most of the normal seaactions could be handled the way suggested by Incy but what to do with those critical pulses, that you haven't foreseen. A sudden appearance of an invasion fleet in in the Italian coast, definately worth higher losses to sink/abort those amphibs than a normal turn. It is alos a significant difference if some german raiders enters the north sea, or if transports loaded with troops do it.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

One thing that came to mind recently was maybe letting the non-phasing player get in a few emails to decide on some of the fleet interceptions. What I mean is instead of requiring the AIA to handle everything for the non-phasing player, maybe there should be some places in a Naval action where the non-phasing player gets the opportunity to decide personally. This would mean a few more emails but it might solve some of the thornier problems with trying to control everything through an AIA.

It's just a thought. I don't want us to narrow our focus to where all the non-phasing player decisions have to be done autonomously.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

One thing that came to mind recently was maybe letting the non-phasing player get in a few emails to decide on some of the fleet interceptions. What I mean is instead of requiring the AIA to handle everything for the non-phasing player, maybe there should be some places in a Naval action where the non-phasing player gets the opportunity to decide personally. This would mean a few more emails but it might solve some of the thornier problems with trying to control everything through an AIA.

It's just a thought. I don't want us to narrow our focus to where all the non-phasing player decisions have to be done autonomously.

This is exactly what I was about to write.
Even if in other areas of the game (air & land) we can manage to have less emails, we can also accept that in some crucial areas of the game more emails are exchanged.
In the real game, naval battles are those things that can last for hours, because of the plenty of decisions to be made, I can understand that it takes some more emails & time.

Interceptions, for the non phasing player, is not the area where there is much need for interaction. The non phasing player just have to have standing orders to decide in advance for each of his fleet at sea whether they will intercept or not, for a small range of typical targets. Example of typical targets :
- Carrier Fleet (fleet with carriers & SCS)
- Battleship Fleet (Fleet with only SCS)
- Transport Fleet (Fleet with TRS / AMPH)
- Transport Fleet with no cargoe.

Those typical targets can also be characterized for their size.
- size 1 small (4 ships or less)
- size 2 normal (5-7 ships)
- size 3 large (8-16 ships)
- size 4 extra large (17-29 ships)
- size 5 Gargaantuan (30+ ships)

So that the non Phasing player can decide for example for his fleet in the North Sea that he will intercept anything except carrier & battleship fleet of size 3 or more with his fleet.


The most critical decisions in my opinion are :
- how to expend surprise points
- choosing naval combat type (this can easily be chosen through standing orders, using the roughly same Typical Targets as above)
- how to allocate damage to his own ships and to enemy ships
- whether to abort from the sea area or not after the first round, and after each round.

Well, that's all for the moment, I must go bak to work.

Best Regards

Patrice

[Froonp]

Maybe there could also be a toggle at the start of a naval combat round that the non phasing player could activate to say "I want to fight this combat with more control from me", or "I'm happy with the AI & Standing orders to carry on this one".

Maybe this toggle could also be included as a Standing Order.

For example, the US with his 3 fleets around Truk trying to keep the island out of supply and the Japanese disrupted, could activate the standing order toggle to say that he wants to fight any eventual fights himself if the Japanese try to challenge his domination of the 3 sea areas, especially by putting TRS / AMPH or CP that could reorganize / put in supply the Japanese, or by putting more shore bombardment.
On the other hand, he could activate the toggle of his Sub fleet in the Sea of China to say that he trust the AI & standing orders to conduct the fight without any intervention from him.

Patrice

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Froonp
Even if in other areas of the game (air & land) we can manage to have less emails, we can also accept that in some crucial areas of the game more emails are exchanged.
In the real game, naval battles are those things that can last for hours, because of the plenty of decisions to be made, I can understand that it takes some more emails & time.

Interceptions, for the non phasing player, is not the area where there is much need for interaction. The non phasing player just have to have standing orders to decide in advance for each of his fleet at sea whether they will intercept or not, for a small range of typical targets. Example of typical targets :
- Carrier Fleet (fleet with carriers & SCS)
- Battleship Fleet (Fleet with only SCS)
- Transport Fleet (Fleet with TRS / AMPH)
- Transport Fleet with no cargoe.

Those typical targets can also be characterized for their size.
- size 1 small (4 ships or less)
- size 2 normal (5-7 ships)
- size 3 large (8-16 ships)
- size 4 extra large (17-29 ships)
- size 5 Gargaantuan (30+ ships)

So that the non Phasing player can decide for example for his fleet in the North Sea that he will intercept anything except carrier & battleship fleet of size 3 or more with his fleet.


The most critical decisions in my opinion are :
- how to expend surprise points
- choosing naval combat type (this can easily be chosen through standing orders, using the roughly same Typical Targets as above)
- how to allocate damage to his own ships and to enemy ships
- whether to abort from the sea area or not after the first round, and after each round.

I am not so sure that simple standing orders will be enough for interceptions. For example, one tactic that I have seen (and used) is to send a small fleet out to see if it provokes a response. If it sails along uncontested, then I send a second small fleet out tempting the non-phasing player a second time. If the non-phasing player does nothing, then I build up a medium size fleet out of range of his naval units in port. If instead he jumps on one of the small fleets, then I have a big fleet in reserve that comes out to help the small fleet and punish the non-phasing player. The large fleet is kept in reserve, like a hammer, to beat up the non-phasing player's navy should it venture out to sea. This primarily works when playing the CW and taking a naval impulse, but it also works for Japan and the USA at times.

There is also the situation where the phasing player has a lot of naval air units that he can commit to turn a surface battle into a naval air combat. I guess my point is that the decision to intercept has to take into account all the other units the phasing player possesses that are available to join the naval combat.

The other major concern I have as the non-phasing player during an opponent's naval action is whether he is drawing out my navy in one sea area so that he can later move an invasion force into a different sea area uncontested.

This is all very tricky stuff.

[Froonp]

I am not so sure that simple standing orders will be enough for interceptions. For example, one tactic that I have seen (and used) is to send a small fleet out to see if it provokes a response. If it sails along uncontested, then I send a second small fleet out tempting the non-phasing player a second time. If the non-phasing player does nothing, then I build up a medium size fleet out of range of his naval units in port. If instead he jumps on one of the small fleets, then I have a big fleet in reserve that comes out to help the small fleet and punish the non-phasing player. The large fleet is kept in reserve, like a hammer, to beat up the non-phasing player's navy should it venture out to sea. This primarily works when playing the CW and taking a naval impulse, but it also works for Japan and the USA at times.

I fail to see how it works, because if the non phasing player decide to intercept, and if the intercept succeed, the naval combat begins and goes to its conclusion without anymore addition of ships to this naval combat. The only thing that can be added is more aircraft, by both sides.

There is also the situation where the phasing player has a lot of naval air units that he can commit to turn a surface battle into a naval air combat. I guess my point is that the decision to intercept has to take into account all the other units the phasing player possesses that are available to join the naval combat.

The non phasing player needs to have all this information available to complete his standing orders.

The other major concern I have as the non-phasing player during an opponent's naval action is whether he is drawing out my navy in one sea area so that he can later move an invasion force into a different sea area uncontested.

This is all very tricky stuff.

I do not understand here neither, because as I said previously, when an interception combat occurs, it goes to its right end without any more ships added.

I'm wondering if you are not victim fo some ghost of WiF past when the non phasing player could actualy sail ships from ports to intercept moving phasing player ships. This no longer exists in WiF Final Edition.

[c92nichj]

ORIGINAL: Froonp
Interceptions, for the non phasing player, is not the area where there is much need for interaction. The non phasing player just have to have standing orders to decide in advance for each of his fleet at sea whether they will intercept or not, for a small range of typical targets. Example of typical targets :
- Carrier Fleet (fleet with carriers & SCS)
- Battleship Fleet (Fleet with only SCS)
- Transport Fleet (Fleet with TRS / AMPH)
- Transport Fleet with no cargoe.

I agree with those things for interception but instead of the size of the fleet I would like to specify acceptable losses, in a way similiar to what Incy wrote, against a Battleship fleet I would like to accept a calculated loss ratio of 0.5, against a transport fleet 1.0 and against a invasion fleet 3.0 (invasion fleet isn't the same as TRS with cargo, they could be in a low box for example or carry units that are not allowed to invade). The AI-A should easily be able to calculate the odds, which for a human can be quite tricky.

The most critical decisions in my opinion are :
- how to expend surprise points
You should be able to state this through a standing order aswell, based on acceptable losses and egerness to save shnips
- choosing naval combat type (this can easily be chosen through standing orders, using the roughly same Typical Targets as above)
Agree
- how to allocate damage to his own ships and to enemy ships
(You can place a general standing order that you want to hurt opponents CV's and TRS, and save your own Convoys and TRS, sort of like a list of priorities, the AIA would then make the detailed decision)
- whether to abort from the sea area or not after the first round, and after each round.
Can be cosen based on the same decision for interccepts or initiate combat

[Mziln]

Yes they are out of sequence but this is how it works...

11.2 Port attack missions step
...Port attack Search rolls
...Port attack Surprise points
...The Port attack
11.3 Naval air missions step
...How to fly a naval air mission
11.4 Naval movement step
...11.4.1 Naval move definition
...11.4.2 Moving naval units
......How do units move?
......Into and out of port
......Sea areas
......How far can units move?
......How does a unit patrol?
...11.4.3 Task forces Option 21 (SiF)
......Hidden task forces
...11.4.4 Naval movement restrictions
...11.4.5 Naval transport
......SCS transport Option 25 (AsA/MiF)
......Embarking
......Debarking in port
......Debarking at sea
...11.4.6 Naval Interception
......How to Naval intercept
......Naval Interception attempt fails
......Naval interception is successful
......Fighting your way through
......End of Naval interception
11.5 First players Naval combat step
11.6 Opponent’s naval combat step

The following are used in the 11.5 First players Naval combat step and 11.6 Opponent’s naval combat step.

11.5.1 the Naval combat round
11.5.2 Initiating a combat
11.5.3 Naval air intercept
11.5.4 Committing units
11.5.5 Naval search roll
...Only one side succeeds
11.5.6 Surprise points
...Spending surprise points
15.5.7 Choosing the type of naval combat
11.5.9 Naval air combat
...Anti-aircraft fire
...The air-to-sea attack
11.5.10 Submarine combat
11.5.8 Surface naval combat
...Naval combat resolution
11.5.11 Multiple naval combat rounds

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Froonp
I fail to see how it works, because if the non phasing player decide to intercept, and if the intercept succeed, the naval combat begins and goes to its conclusion without anymore addition of ships to this naval combat. The only thing that can be added is more aircraft, by both sides.

WIF Final Edition 11.4.6
"If the [naval] interception succeeds, the moving player [phasing player] has 2 choices:
(a) stop the move in that sea area; or
(b) try to fight through."

If the phasng player selects choice (a), then the naval combat doesn't occur until the normal naval combat phase. That gives him time to bring in more surface units as well as the air units.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Froonp
I'm wondering if you are not victim fo some ghost of WiF past when the non phasing player could actualy sail ships from ports to intercept moving phasing player ships. This no longer exists in WiF Final Edition.

Ah, yes. I see your point.

Doesn't this mean that as Germany, I can put together an invasion fleet and if I have the initiative, move them uncontested into the North Sea and invade England using an Offensive Chit and the CW can do nothing about it? At least not until the following impulse? Can't I also invade the major port where the CW has most of his naval units and (if successful) force them all to rebase - thereby denying the CW the use of those units during the turn?

If all the above is true, then I do not see the change as an improvement. Invasions would be far too easy to accomplish. The only defense would be to leave a picket surface ship (or ships) at sea at the end of the turn and maintain an marked advantage in air power to force a naval air combat.

Alternatively, split the CW fleet into two groups, one of which remains at sea (in a low numbered sea box) and a second that comes out during the CW's first impulse (to a high numbered sea box). By swapping these two half size fleets every turn, the CW can keep one sea area occupied during the first impulse of every turn as a deterent to the Germany navy.

In places where there are several avenues (sea areas) of approach, stopping an invasion with surface ships would be rare, since the surface units have to commit to a specific sea area before the invasion fleet leaves harbor.

Does anyone else have these concerns?

[Froonp]

WIF Final Edition 11.4.6
"If the [naval] interception succeeds, the moving player [phasing player] has 2 choices:
(a) stop the move in that sea area; or
(b) try to fight through."

If the phasing player selects choice (a), then the naval combat doesn't occur until the normal naval combat phase. That gives him time to bring in more surface units as well as the air units.

Hello,

If the phasing playe chooses (a) there's no interception combat, but there's no problem neither, because if the phasing player wanted to crush the enemy ships who intercepted him, he could have sailed a large fleet from the start and tried to crush them. No need to sail a smal fleet before. Basicaly, if the phasing player chose (a) the non phasing player won the day because effectively the phasing player's ships who wanted to sail far away only stopped in this sea area.

[c92nichj]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
Doesn't this mean that as Germany, I can put together an invasion fleet and if I have the initiative, move them uncontested into the North Sea and invade England using an Offensive Chit and the CW can do nothing about it?

Yes unless you leave a picket surface ship (or ships) at sea at the end of the turn and maintain an marked advantage in air power to force a naval air combat.

Can't I also invade the major port where the CW has most of his naval units and (if successful) force them all to rebase - thereby denying the CW the use of those units during the turn?

Yes and this is a tactic I have used with the Italians, making a suprise attack on a french/CW fleet and as even faceup ships are overrunned during a suprise impulse, I have a decent chance of capturing some ships and sinking others. The lesson is, always leave have a land-unit guard your major fleetbase.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: Froonp
I'm wondering if you are not victim fo some ghost of WiF past when the non phasing player could actualy sail ships from ports to intercept moving phasing player ships. This no longer exists in WiF Final Edition.

Ah, yes. I see your point.

Doesn't this mean that as Germany, I can put together an invasion fleet and if I have the initiative, move them uncontested into the North Sea and invade England using an Offensive Chit and the CW can do nothing about it? At least not until the following impulse? Can't I also invade the major port where the CW has most of his naval units and (if successful) force them all to rebase - thereby denying the CW the use of those units during the turn?

Basically yes, but it would prove bad play from the CW player if what you wrote happened, for many reasons :
1) When Germany builts an invasion fleet it shows. The CW can outbuilt Germany easily and have a couple of extra assets for the Sea Lion day.
2) If Germany has an invasion fleet and if CW didn't left some fleet including a couple of carriers at sea at the end of the previous turn, it is crazy.
3) If the CW, with the threat of a German invasion, leaves the ports where his fleet anchor without corps, he gets what he deserve.

If all the above is true, then I do not see the change as an improvement. Invasions would be far too easy to accomplish. The only defense would be to leave a picket surface ship (or ships) at sea at the end of the turn and maintain an marked advantage in air power to force a naval air combat.

You got it.
WiF FE is like this, since 1996.

Alternatively, split the CW fleet into two groups, one of which remains at sea (in a low numbered sea box) and a second that comes out during the CW's first impulse (to a high numbered sea box). By swapping these two half size fleets every turn, the CW can keep one sea area occupied during the first impulse of every turn as a deterent to the Germany navy.

In places where there are several avenues (sea areas) of approach, stopping an invasion with surface ships would be rare, since the surface units have to commit to a specific sea area before the invasion fleet leaves harbor.

Does anyone else have these concerns?

Don't forget that the scenario you're basing your history upon is an unlikely one. A German invasion of England shows months before it comes, and Germany would have to crack an OC for a super combined Impulse.
And next Impulse, the RN could very likely cut its supply and then the troops ashore would soon be cold meat. The conquest on England do not boils donw to the simple invasion impulse, it is won or lost during the couple of following turns, and if the CW had the time to prepare himself for that (and he have because it shows), the way WiF FE works is not a problem.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Froonp
Don't forget that the scenario you're basing your history upon is an unlikely one. A German invasion of England shows months before it comes, and Germany would have to crack an OC for a super combined Impulse.
And next Impulse, the RN could very likely cut its supply and then the troops ashore would soon be cold meat. The conquest on England do not boils donw to the simple invasion impulse, it is won or lost during the couple of following turns, and if the CW had the time to prepare himself for that (and he have because it shows), the way WiF FE works is not a problem.

This means playing with the optional rule that a TRS (or equivalent) must be in a sea area to provide supply. If a naval air is all you need to send supply through a sea area, Germany has a bunch of them and can put up a lot of fighters to defend them.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: Froonp
Don't forget that the scenario you're basing your history upon is an unlikely one. A German invasion of England shows months before it comes, and Germany would have to crack an OC for a super combined Impulse.
And next Impulse, the RN could very likely cut its supply and then the troops ashore would soon be cold meat. The conquest on England do not boils donw to the simple invasion impulse, it is won or lost during the couple of following turns, and if the CW had the time to prepare himself for that (and he have because it shows), the way WiF FE works is not a problem.

This means playing with the optional rule that a TRS (or equivalent) must be in a sea area to provide supply. If a naval air is all you need to send supply through a sea area, Germany has a bunch of them and can put up a lot of fighters to defend them.

Yes, you're right, I'm so used to play with the limited supply (need a CP / AMPH / TRS) that I often consider it to be the normal rule.
Well, anyway don't worry, WiF FE works a marvel the way it is at sea.
Best Regards

Patrice

[Greyshaft]

We pause this thread for a community announcement.
This interaction about invasions raises an interesting question. Some people have the WiFFE canon memorised while others (including myself) only memorised the Old Testament of WiF 5 or similar back in the 1990s when we had time and space to actually play the sucker every Tusday night. Now I know that MWiF is based on WiFFE - no problems there - but I'm wondering if there is a document showing the differences between WiFFE and WiF 5 which will hopefully stop me asking uninformed questions?

Doesn't hurt to ask[:D]


We now return you to our regular discussion

[Froonp]

I'm wondering if there is a document showing the differences between WiFFE and WiF 5 which will hopefully stop me asking uninformed questions?

Doesn't hurt to ask

As far as I know, there isn't. But I think it would be interesting to have one, just for fun of seeing the differences
Best Regards
Patrice

[herwin]

Having built naval command and control systems professionally, there is a flavor that I would like the game to have. Basically, there is a thick border along which both sides know what's up, and then things get very vague in the hinterland. Intelligence helps a lot, but combat vessels move fast enough that surprise happens--the defender's goal is to figure out what's happening quickly enough that they can either interfere or get out of the way. There's not much terrain on the ocean, so the defense doesn't have a marked advantage. The presence of ports, airfields, and the like served to control observation. For example, Midway served most advantageously as a base for reconnaissance, allowing Spruance to sit behind it and wait for the IJN to come to him. A constant cold feeling in the pit of the stomach is what I want the naval commanders to have.