Decline & Fall AAR

[composer99]

So, no errors in the USSR set up. (At least, no rule-breaking errors. If there is anything the Germans can take advantage of, hopefully German player Composer99 can pick up on it...)

Anyway, working my way through the CW & US set ups and I thought I'd remind the board about this little dandy unit, which will become available in the US player's force pool starting January/February 1945.

(In other words, to quote Canadian comedian Russell Peters: "Somebody gonna get hurt real bad. Somebody.")

[composer99]

US set up almost done, but have to stop.

Once the US set up is done I will take screen captures of the Allied set up.

Some highlights I can mention:

There is a huge Allied army in Italy. I'm not sure how the Axis will hold on there this summer.

The Axis defences in France looked impressive when I was starting the Allied setups. But now that the Allied air force is on the map... well, not so much.

The Allies' Achilles heel is sealift. They are desperately short of it. The Allies are also a bit short of good convoy escort cruisers (this is what I get for not playing with light cruisers). Chances are they'll be depending on the USSR to keep Germany calling land impulses.

[composer99]

Hey, all,

Due to issues that are beyond my pay grade to discuss, I'm afraid I have to wrap up this AAR.

As it turns out, this is probably a bit of a relief for both sides: the Axis to try to remedy any flaws in their set up; the Allies to get a better handle on their sealift issue.

(No seriously, I realized while I was setting up the US - too late, unless I use magic beta test override mojo, to alter the CW set up - that I had only put enough sealift in the UK for the CW to invade France initially, and no sealift for follow-up reinforcements.)





Anyway, I'm going to start afresh with a Decline & Fall AAR version 2. If anyone has any suggestions, now's the time. In particular, if anyone has any questions or suggestions on what they, as new players (or prospective new players) who don't know the system well, would like to see in a late-war scenario AAR, please chime in.

In the meantime:

[Ur_Vile_WEdge]

I admit, I never once played Decline and Fall myself, but if we're weighing in our two cents strategy wise, I just thought I'd let it out.

I wans't crazy with the Soviet setup. Nothing critically wrong per se, but just I think there was too much diffusion.


You had, what? 4 corps in Persia, 6 bodies up near Petsamo, and a whole mass of winterized guys ready to knock over Helsinki? If it was me, anyway, I wouldn't be spending so any bodies in a short scenario on side fronts. You win the war in Romania and in Byelorussia and Poland.


I'd toss like one weak mil in the hex where his ZoC could block off two of the oil, and if a partisan gets the other one? You've got 29 factories, and 30 resources. If every oil dependant land and air unit the Soviets owned needed to be reorged, that's 8 oil; you've still got 44 BP if the Wallies don't give you a dime, and with one garrison, it's only a 3% per turn chance of a partisan even showing up in Persia.

Same thing with Petsamo, the difference between what you need to deny the Germans the resource (1 division) and what you'd need to secure it for yourself, (3-5 corps) are forces that probably could be better employed pushing harder in the plains. Doubly so if you're planning on hitting Helsinki, if you grab the capital, you conquer Finland, so you'd get Petsamo a turn later by default.


You've only got 8 turns, so production isn't a huge deal. While I don't suggest you ignore it completely, I thin you should be stabbing at the vitals, not the periphery. Think of what another 8 corps, even 8 weak corps, can do to reinforce your advance.

[Centuur]

I think Ur_Vile_Wedge is right about the Petsamo set up. I wouldn't do that. Concentrate on Helsinki, knock Finland out of the war and you've got it.

The Persia set up isn't according to the WiF scenario booklet, so those also will have to go somewhere else in the future, if Steve is going to correct the set up.
Also, the USSR can get only one oil out of Persia (unless the CW will lent the USSR the convoy points needed to ship the other two also towards Bandar Shapur or through Iraq. This needs to be considered in the set up of convoys by the Western Allies). If the CW and the US do so, than two units is enough (one in Bandar Shapur, the other in the hex between the two coastal oil fields) to make sure the oil flows from Persia, through Iraq, Syria and neutral Turkey into the USSR...

[composer99]

ORIGINAL: Ur_Vile_WEdge

I admit, I never once played Decline and Fall myself, but if we're weighing in our two cents strategy wise, I just thought I'd let it out.

I wans't crazy with the Soviet setup. Nothing critically wrong per se, but just I think there was too much diffusion.


You had, what? 4 corps in Persia, 6 bodies up near Petsamo, and a whole mass of winterized guys ready to knock over Helsinki? If it was me, anyway, I wouldn't be spending so any bodies in a short scenario on side fronts. You win the war in Romania and in Byelorussia and Poland.


I'd toss like one weak mil in the hex where his ZoC could block off two of the oil, and if a partisan gets the other one? You've got 29 factories, and 30 resources. If every oil dependant land and air unit the Soviets owned needed to be reorged, that's 8 oil; you've still got 44 BP if the Wallies don't give you a dime, and with one garrison, it's only a 3% per turn chance of a partisan even showing up in Persia.

Same thing with Petsamo, the difference between what you need to deny the Germans the resource (1 division) and what you'd need to secure it for yourself, (3-5 corps) are forces that probably could be better employed pushing harder in the plains. Doubly so if you're planning on hitting Helsinki, if you grab the capital, you conquer Finland, so you'd get Petsamo a turn later by default.


You've only got 8 turns, so production isn't a huge deal. While I don't suggest you ignore it completely, I thin you should be stabbing at the vitals, not the periphery. Think of what another 8 corps, even 8 weak corps, can do to reinforce your advance.

and

ORIGINAL: Centuur

I think Ur_Vile_Wedge is right about the Petsamo set up. I wouldn't do that. Concentrate on Helsinki, knock Finland out of the war and you've got it.

The Persia set up isn't according to the WiF scenario booklet, so those also will have to go somewhere else in the future, if Steve is going to correct the set up.
Also, the USSR can get only one oil out of Persia (unless the CW will lent the USSR the convoy points needed to ship the other two also towards Bandar Shapur or through Iraq. This needs to be considered in the set up of convoys by the Western Allies). If the CW and the US do so, than two units is enough (one in Bandar Shapur, the other in the hex between the two coastal oil fields) to make sure the oil flows from Persia, through Iraq, Syria and neutral Turkey into the USSR...

While disagreeing with the assessment that the USSR had too many units in periphery per se, I will agree that given a large force assembled to knock Finland out of the war, an additional force to secure Petsamo is superfluous.

As such, for a future run of this scenario:
- USSR will screen Petsamo & leave a bare-bones garrison in Murmansk - the extra units will be used on the main front anywhere the Germans are weak for additional seeping or attacks on single weak units
- no more than 2 units will be set up in Persia, although once the front has shrunk in Poland there will almost certainly be a spare corps that can be railed in such that a unit is sitting on top of each oil
- I will also refrain from setting up USSR units in Persia from the Europe set up "tray"

[Extraneous]

ORIGINAL: RAW7scenario.pdf
24.4.6 Decline and fall ~ The Allied ascendancy: May/Jun 1944 ~ Jul/Aug 1945

the USSR has conquered Persia and controls Rumania (E of the 1944 start line) and Poland (E of the 1944 start line);

While Shannon V. OKeets post #61 shows that the Asia/Pacific map border going straight down to the Persian border. It therefore should make all of Persia in the USSR Asia/Pacific set up area. Three hexes on the Europe map should not place all of Persia on the Europe map.

This view is supported by the original designer where he states Persia is not on the Eastern & Western European maps in a 2-map game.

ORIGINAL: World in Flames Final Edition Clarification Summary Jul 2009

24.3 The 2-map campaigns
Number Q24.3-1
Rule Reference 24.3.1
Question (411)
Facist Tide Scenario. Can the Axis align Persia (as per the rules) to cut 1 oil from CW (Persia is not on the maps used in this Scenario)?

Harry Rowland's Answer (411) Yes. Date 12/12/1996

RAW7aug04 Rule Quote (411) 24.3.1: Maps used: The American and the Eastern & Western European maps.

Answer Date 12/12/1996

Ur_Vile_WEdge is right in post #106 the MWiF USSR set up in Persia does not conform to the WiF rules.

[composer99]

If anyone has any suggestions for the Axis set up for this scenario, I'd very much appreciate it. Their set up is necessarily much more challenging, and with much less room for error, than the Allies (Allied sealift being the sole notable exception).

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: composer99

If anyone has any suggestions for the Axis set up for this scenario, I'd very much appreciate it. Their set up is necessarily much more challenging, and with much less room for error, than the Allies (Allied sealift being the sole notable exception).

Given the length of the scenario, the Axis will want to withdraw its forces towards the rear. But they shouldn't give up a lot of hexes for free.

A continuous front against the USSR makes more sense to me, rather than letting units be cutoff by the Russians simply moving units through gaps in the line. Force the USSR to attack to cutoff units, then withdraw. Once you have established a hex row/column of distance between the two front lines, then you can have the Axis hold every other hex. This is similar to how the USSR withdraws in the face of Barbarossa.

[Extraneous]

24.4.6 Decline and fall: Allied ascendancy Part 1 (critique)

1. You did not list what options you selected. This makes it hard for the reader to tell what rules are in force.

2. Post #34 (set up) I like the use of the Global Situation map. It gives everyone a good starting point on the situation.

3. Post #35 (set up) excellent idea to show the victory totals view.

6. Why didn't you post a Grand Strategy for China?

4. Post #36 (China) it would have been better to show the hex control flags.

5. Post #39 (China) good idea to tell which units were scrapped.

6. Post #41 (Japan) good idea to tell which units were scrapped and why.

7. Post #50, #54, and #56 (Japan) Your Grand Strategy for Japan (an overview).

8. Post #57 a very much needed Japan vs. the USSR garrison value list. I would have placed before Grand Strategy this would show the why of your set up decisions and group all your set ups together.

9. Post #58 (Japan) Manchuria set up.

10. Post #59, 60, and 61 The China Fronts. There was no need for the screenshots a simple narrative would have sufficed. You already posted the screenshots

11. Post #73 Your Grand Strategy for Germany, Italy, and their minors (an overview). No need for the Global Situation map nothing has changed yet. You could have used less screenshots if you had focused on areas like Norway, Finland, All of France, all of Germany, and etc.

12. Post #86, #88, #89, and #90 YES! What was in the Axis production pipeline?

13. Post #95 a much better scale to show set up.

14. Don't use German words without following them with a definition (i.e. German Ostheer).

15. Post #103 These are the only peripheral theatres?

16. Post #104 excellent idea to show the Partisan tables. Does this include China?

17. Why didn't you post a Grand Strategy for the USSR?

18. No comments on strategy you make the decisions you live with the results.



My over all view of this AAR is very favorable but it is slightly disorganized.

It heavily focuses on the plans of the Axis while is less informative with the Allied intentions.

[:)] Well done composer99 [:)]

[composer99]

quote:
ORIGINAL: Extraneous
24.4.6 Decline and fall: Allied ascendancy Part 1 (critique)

Thanks, Extraneous. I won't respond to any points that are just attaboys, although I do appreciate them.

quote:
1. You did not list what options you selected. This makes it hard for the reader to tell what rules are in force.

Uhh.. I thought I had done that by showing screenshots? See posts #5 through 11.

Now, I will cop to not explaining any optional rules, which maybe I should have done (at least for particularly obscure ones). On the whole, though, I'd rather leave that for when people ask me about an optional rule and/or why I did/did not pick it.

quote:
6. Why didn't you post a Grand Strategy for China?

Again, I thought I had - see posts #22-24. It might not be a very good set of grand strategy posts, but it's there.

quote:
4. Post #36 (China) it would have been better to show the hex control flags.

That is a good point. I had wanted to reduce clutter because it was a "big picture" screen capture, but that is information that should have been on it, either by toggling hex control or manipulating the screen capture to show it some other way.

quote:
7. Post #50, #54, and #56 (Japan) Your Grand Strategy for Japan (an overview).

I assume there was either an "attaboy" or a "gotcha" meant to be included in this comment?

quote:
10. Post #59, 60, and 61 The China Fronts. There was no need for the screenshots a simple narrative would have sufficed. You already posted the screenshots

Perhaps, but the screenshots posted earlier did not have Japanese units set up on them, and I would rather post new screenshots than make readers scroll or click back on the thread to see old ones, especially if they don't contain the information I want them to show (the Japanese positions).

quote:
11. Post #73 Your Grand Strategy for Germany, Italy, and their minors (an overview). No need for the Global Situation map nothing has changed yet. You could have used less screenshots if you had focused on areas like Norway, Finland, All of France, all of Germany, and etc.

Re: the global situation map, again, I prefer that people keep reading than to have to scroll or click back; furthermore I posted about the German set up a day or two after Japan's. That said, on further reflection I concede that it didn't really need repeating.

Re: the quantity of screenshots, that is largely a function of the screen size limitation of my laptop. If I had a bigger monitor, it would not be as much of an issue. Otherwise, a valid point.

quote:
14. Don't use German words without following them with a definition (i.e. German Ostheer).

Fair point, at least for a word like Ostheer (and is applicable for other foreign tongues). When even the History Channel uses Luftwaffe, I figure I can let that one slide, though.

quote:
15. Post #103 These are the only peripheral theatres?

From the perspective of the USSR, yes. Burma, for example, is a peripheral theatre overall, but not one the USSR has any interest in.

quote:
16. Post #104 excellent idea to show the Partisan tables. Does this include China?

The partisan table as a whole does; however as Chinese partisans are friendly to the Allies China doesn't show up with the filter I used turned on.

(Parenthetically, I didn't get a chance with this first AAR to set up partisans (which happens after all other units are set up) so I didn't really talk about partisans in general; had I reached that stage I would have, and intend to with version 2 of the AAR.)

quote:
17. Why didn't you post a Grand Strategy for the USSR?

Hmm... good catch. I posted the overall summary (with obligatory comic book reference) and left it at that without going into detail. My bad.

quote:
18. No comments on strategy you make the decisions you live with the results.

Fair enough. Allied player Composer99 will get to take full advantage of any errors made by Axis player Composer99, and vice-versa.

quote:
My over all view of this AAR is very favorable but it is slightly disorganized.

In my defence, I was doing these setups and writing this AAR, more often than not, when I ought to have been sleeping. [>:]

(Also, I'm not the most organized person in the world, just look at my desk... no, no nothing to see here, move along! )

quote:
It heavily focuses on the plans of the Axis while is less informative with the Allied intentions.

Yes, although ending it before getting to the set up of the US/CW/France is I dare say a principal reason for that. I certainly hope to remedy the lack in version 2.

Thanks again for your input!

[Extraneous]

[X(] You did post what options you selected I missed #1 through #5 somehow. Sorry about that.

Could you do it on one screenshot? Ask the others if you need to know how.


Remember the five W's of good journalism: Who, what, where, when, and why (or how much).

What would have been easier to follow is just a overview followed by your screenshots.

Who: China
What: Grand Strategy
Where: North Front, Central Front, and South Front
When: Set up
Why: describe the why to the readers.


It could look like this:

Grand Strategies (when)

China Grand Strategy (who)
Describe the areas of importance to the Chinese player (Northern Front, Central Front, and Southern Front) and why you set up this way to the readers. (what, where, and why)

Japan Grand Strategy
Describe the areas of importance to the Japanese player and why you set up this way to the readers.

Etc. Grand Strategy

Followed by Your screenshots.

Example: Chinese and Japanese set up could be on the same screenshot with their hex control flags.

This will allow you to maximize your information and reduce your screenshots.

This should give you more time to sleep and play the game.

7. Post #50, #54, and #56 (Japan) Your Grand Strategy for Japan (an overview).

This was listed because it was very well done and it makes a good reference to have you do it more often.

10. Post #59, 60, and 61 The China Fronts. There was no need for the screenshots a simple narrative would have sufficed. You already posted the screenshots

11. Post #73 Your Grand Strategy for Germany, Italy, and their minors (an overview). No need for the Global Situation map nothing has changed yet. You could have used less screenshots if you had focused on areas like Norway, Finland, All of France, all of Germany, and etc.

Post a link to the information if your worried about scrolling. If your not familiar with links ask others they will explain it.

Let the reader decide if they want to open another tab.



I'm a pile person myself.

One pile for everything but I know exactly where everything is in that pile.


There is an old Data Processing (now called IT because it sounds cool) saying:

A clean desk is a sign of a cluttered mind.