Matrix Games Forums

Never mind just saw the "Convoys" part.

Transporting resources by rail

The move can only pass through:
hexes you control;
hexes in neutral minor countries; and
hexes controlled by another major power, but only if it allows you (USA aways allows their side).

ORIGINAL: Red Prince

This is what happened to Malta due to that massive mistake I made in forgetting about a known bug. Note the Italian INF Division in position to invade. He was intended to invade either Greece or Syria . . . or even Egypt . . . but being forced to move the 5-4 INF from Malta to Bombay so that I could abort the French navy . . .

Anyway, the CW can't reinforce Malta, so it is a delicious target. This may be the primary reason a DOW is essential.

Why? The non-cooperation rule applies to ships too? Then we made a wrong move in our wifcon game.

ORIGINAL: Joseignacio

ORIGINAL: Red Prince

This is what happened to Malta due to that massive mistake I made in forgetting about a known bug. Note the Italian INF Division in position to invade. He was intended to invade either Greece or Syria . . . or even Egypt . . . but being forced to move the 5-4 INF from Malta to Bombay so that I could abort the French navy . . .

Anyway, the CW can't reinforce Malta, so it is a delicious target. This may be the primary reason a DOW is essential.

Why? The non-cooperation rule applies to ships too? Then we made a wrong move in our wifcon game.

Apparently (to my understanding), it does. Sorry, and I hope it didn't change the outcome draatically in your game.

No, in fact we moved the french cruisers in what seems to be now an illegal move, to a CW port in Africa, to rebase them to Asia. Usually I send them to French possesions in Africa and that's all.

The outcome was that we couldn't rebase them fast enough and they were close to Madagascar (which became FF) but also to "Other territories in the Asian map" or whatever the name is, which became Vichy and as a consequence I lost "my" 4 best cruisers, which became Vichy (all that could get in a minor port), which shouldn't have happened otherwise.

ORIGINAL: Joseignacio

No, in fact we moved the french cruisers in what seems to be now an illegal move, to a CW port in Africa, to rebase them to Asia. Usually I send them to French possesions in Africa and that's all.

The outcome was that we couldn't rebase them fast enough and they were close to Madagascar (which became FF) but also to "Other territories in the Asian map" or whatever the name is, which became Vichy and as a consequence I lost "my" 4 best cruisers, which became Vichy (all that could get in a minor port), which shouldn't have happened otherwise.

If the CW port in Africa was not occupied by a CW unit, then the move was legal . . . but if it was . . . . I think it was an illegal move. A lot of rules to keep track of, especially when you are under the gun like you were at the convention.

Just think about it, I've spent 3 or 4 hours now, just considering how best to "fix" the problems I created with the CW fleet at setup. No way could you do that at the convention. [:)]

If I was Churchill and my Foreign Minister or First Sea Lord or Chief of the Imperial General Staff said to me that we might as well sign off on the Russians going into Persia (and thus handing the good parts off to the Japanese) because the Italians are just going to take Iraq anyway, well, that person would be sacked on the spot.

For the Italians to align Iraq (and they already blew their chance for surprise impulse landings in Syria), they have to go through the Royal Navy. The Royal Navy is a powerful instrument of war. Use it. Playing the CW like a turtle curled up into a ball while you wait for Uncle Sam is just not the way to do it, nor is the way the real English ever ran a military campaign for that matter. The Allies being afraid of casualties is probably the number two way for the Allies to lose the game. (No BEF? Really.)

The number one way for the Allies to lose the game is probably for the Russians to get deeply entangled in Manchuria in 1940, before knowing whether the Euro-Axis can or might launch a full-on Barbarossa in 1941. I have seen that over and over again...Uncle Joe gets bored and ends up throwing the whole game. My thoughts on that are in the Russian AI thread, we have talked that to death over the years.

Just a gentle reminder that I am trying to reproduce conditions from the game that was lost with my old computer . . . not trying to play the perfect game from the start.

ORIGINAL: Red Prince

ORIGINAL: Centuur

Gearing limits are limits on what you units you can produce. For example: if you've build one infantry type of unit this turn, you can build a max. of two next turn.
Now, at start of the game, this limits aren't there. So the everyone can build whatever number of units he likes in the first production phase.

I understand this, I just don't understand who the USSR should be fearing. I assume you mean Japan being able to build out an army to conquer Siberia?

No, I mean getting into a war of attrittion with the Japanese, losing a lot of units early in the war. The USSR should take Persia, but not before the Japanese has committed himself by his build program.
Every USSR corps tied up in a war with Japan cannot be used against the Germans. If enough corps are lost or isolated during this war, things might get easier for the Euroaxis to crush the USSR in a Barbarossa 1941...

To clarify:

The danger of immediately DOW'ing Persia is that the Japanese can then DOW the USSR while some of the best of the very few units the USSR has are far away in Persia. Even if the USSR can counter the first attacks, the Japanese will be able to make good progress in killing and tying up Soviet units. And then the Germans have a much easier time of it in 1941.

Waiting a turn enables the USSR to see what the Japanese build program is. If it is light on infantry units, then there is less danger from a Japanese attack in the far east.

Myself, I always build a lot of land units for the Japanese at the start of the war. The early year air units have awful numbers on them and the most important naval units (AMPH and TRS) can wait several turns. The only real loss is that the new carriers may get started late.

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

To clarify:

The danger of immediately DOW'ing Persia is that the Japanese can then DOW the USSR while some of the best of the very few units the USSR has are far away in Persia. Even if the USSR can counter the first attacks, the Japanese will be able to make good progress in killing and tying up Soviet units. And then the Germans have a much easier time of it in 1941.

Waiting a turn enables the USSR to see what the Japanese build program is. If it is light on infantry units, then there is less danger from a Japanese attack in the far east.

Myself, I always build a lot of land units for the Japanese at the start of the war. The early year air units have awful numbers on them and the most important naval units (AMPH and TRS) can wait several turns. The only real loss is that the new carriers may get started late.

I think most Japanese players build a lot of land units the first turn, exactly as Steve does, so usually USSR gets no additional clue from this. That is in my humble opinion anyway.

ORIGINAL: Orm

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

To clarify:

The danger of immediately DOW'ing Persia is that the Japanese can then DOW the USSR while some of the best of the very few units the USSR has are far away in Persia. Even if the USSR can counter the first attacks, the Japanese will be able to make good progress in killing and tying up Soviet units. And then the Germans have a much easier time of it in 1941.

Waiting a turn enables the USSR to see what the Japanese build program is. If it is light on infantry units, then there is less danger from a Japanese attack in the far east.

Myself, I always build a lot of land units for the Japanese at the start of the war. The early year air units have awful numbers on them and the most important naval units (AMPH and TRS) can wait several turns. The only real loss is that the new carriers may get started late.

I think most Japanese players build a lot of land units the first turn, exactly as Steve does, so usually USSR gets no additional clue from this. That is in my humble opinion anyway.

I actually have been doing the same, because in MWiF, there is just so much of China to cover, that every man is needed if you are going to have a shot at wiping the Chinese out.

ORIGINAL: brian brian

If I was Churchill and my Foreign Minister or First Sea Lord or Chief of the Imperial General Staff said to me that we might as well sign off on the Russians going into Persia (and thus handing the good parts off to the Japanese) because the Italians are just going to take Iraq anyway, well, that person would be sacked on the spot.

For the Italians to align Iraq (and they already blew their chance for surprise impulse landings in Syria), they have to go through the Royal Navy. The Royal Navy is a powerful instrument of war. Use it. Playing the CW like a turtle curled up into a ball while you wait for Uncle Sam is just not the way to do it, nor is the way the real English ever ran a military campaign for that matter. The Allies being afraid of casualties is probably the number two way for the Allies to lose the game. (No BEF? Really.)

The number one way for the Allies to lose the game is probably for the Russians to get deeply entangled in Manchuria in 1940, before knowing whether the Euro-Axis can or might launch a full-on Barbarossa in 1941. I have seen that over and over again...Uncle Joe gets bored and ends up throwing the whole game. My thoughts on that are in the Russian AI thread, we have talked that to death over the years.

In my recent game at EWC, the Italian didn't declare war on CW, so I (CW) saw them align Irak without opposition. Now I wonder if I should have declared war even losing american entry chits.

ahh, it is hard to keep in perspective how much you are re-building a game and how much you are interested in playing a new one

but once the first die is rolled, no two games of World in Flames are ever the same, and that's what makes the game so great.

ORIGINAL: brian brian

ahh, it is hard to keep in perspective how much you are re-building a game and how much you are interested in playing a new one

but once the first die is rolled, no two games of World in Flames are ever the same, and that's what makes the game so great.

Perhaps true, but this is a beta-test game, intended to check for long-term degredation over the course of a full game. I liked how the last one was heading, because I tried things I'd never tried before, and it was interesting. I wanted to see where they would lead. I also did say, though, that this shouldn't limit discussion, so that's my fault for "interrupting" perfectly legitimate theory discussions.

I'm going to repost my goals, from the first post:

I plan to play agressively as the Axis:

• Germany will once again run things in the Balkans so that Rumania becomes a full ally
• Italy will be trying to close the Med in the Middle-East once more
• Germany and/or Italy will be trying to take Gibraltar (and Tangier -- I'm convinced now)
• I may or may not conquer France, depending on how the game goes
• Sea Lion is probably out
• Barbarossa '41 is prefered, but not necessary
• I'd still like to try to sneak the Germans over the Persian border to activate Turkey

Any or all of this is subjet to change, based on your thoughts. Primarily, I'd like to hear about build strategies, since I really screwed that up last time. Additionally, the choice of US Entry options has received some debate. I'll try to keep track of the actual values this time around, so you can make your suggestions there, too.

I'm trying to get a little more work done on this game today. Yesterday I sent the CW fleets out into the seas of the world in an attmept to look threatening, and maybe it worked. The USA sent some SUBs to the Denmark Strait, since I'll likely choose the option to take over the administration of Denmark and Greenland at the end of this turn (and I don't want to forget to rebase my subs out that way).

I've got only 1 LND for the CW that could have any real chance at doing any damage in a Ground Strike, and the target hex is fairly well defended. I'd have to send both of the CW Hurricanes from Dover (the CVP in the North Sea right now just aren't up to the task), so I'm not going to try. Historically, I have had terrible luck with attempts like this, so I tend to be timid when using the RAF early on in the game. (I once lost 3 CVP and 2 LND in what I thought would be a brilliant raid, aborting a single German FTR -- yeah, I let that go on too long, but it still made me timid).

A lot of decisions to be made in China. First, I've got 4 options in the southernmost part of the battlefield. The INF you see here can:

1. Sit tight and do nothing
2. Take over Hainan and frustrate the Japanese for a bit, but that will Isolate it
3. Move to the hex SE of the MAR Division, Isolating it, but this will put the Chinese INF out of supply
4. Try to obstruct a direct run on the RP and Kweilin

I think that option 4 is probably the best plan. The MAR would have trouble following up with any other actions, and it would end up far from any transport, but it might be worth it to Japan to screw with the Chinese, so I think it best to move back and defend.

The Chinese setup, being un-brilliant, has forced a bad situation in the N. Monsoon zone. So has an unlucky 3rd impulse Weather roll.

I'm forced to retreat everyone toward Hengyang, hoping that the HQ and INF Division can hold the fort for an impulse (hopefully one that has terrible weather), because otherwise, the Japanses are in position to take it on a somewhat risky attack and Isolate a bunch of Chinese units. China really needs to buy some time here.

And finally, in the North, I was looking at possible supply lines, and I didn't like what I saw. If the ultimate goal is to get these MIL into the mountains south of Ankang, then I had to start pushing that way now, while the nearby Japanese units were disorganized. So, I took a slight chance in separating them, but that was due to movement rates and how far each could get toward a reliable supply source.

As for the Communists, they're in a solid position right now, and they are going to have to wait for the USSR to make its move in Persia before they can do anything useful, anyway.

France is in a bit of a bind. They just don't have enough units to prepare for the coming German offensive yet. They really have to hope that Belgium can put up a good defense (and that the weather is helpful with that), so they can get a few more feet on the ground.

Current goals are to build up the Belgian-French border, which includes using both HQ units to reorganize land units. On the Italian front, I'm actually making it inviting for Italy to cross the border. They won't be able to get very far, and it will increase the French production multiple if they do, so we'll see if they take the bait.

Not shown here, is the attempt to defend the Middle-East from Italian landings. Shouldn't be too hard to do. It means repositioning the 2 Syrian TERR into Beirut and Tripoli, and sending the Damascus CAV (who technically shouldn't have arrived until next turn) to Tel Aviv (and the port of Jaffa).
-----
Edit: I've been informed, correctly, that I was confused about the Damascus CAV . . . it should not have been available until M/A '40, which means my attempt to "not forget" to get the CBV glitch correctly applied was in error. Perhaps I should remove him until later, but unless there are objections, I'll just let him stay where he is.
-----
Also not seen are a few moves in N. Africa that reposition troops in Algeria to try to protect the ports, and perhaps even to help out in Tunisia.

And yes, Western France looks awfully lonely right now.

The USSR took over Eastern-Poland, and was lucky by a single digit; USE-8 (no chit).

That leaves the other 4 moves available to lay the groundwork for a quick elimination of Persia.
-----
Edit: In retrospect, I realize I should have used my LND for the Ground Strike this impulse because of the extra die for Surprise, but I was thinking I might want him for help with Ground Support when the actual attack took place. But that was foolish. It's going to be a 5:1 attack, and adding 4 factors gives me little extra help, even if I am luck on the Fractional Odds roll to make it a 7:1 attack. Small oops here.