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 337 times
- 14-AL-Asian-GSPT-Taiyuan.png (368.05 KiB) Viewed 339 times
- 14-AL-Asian-LC-Taiyuan.png (277.74 KiB) Viewed 339 times
