New to the game - Basic Questions

[Courtenay]

There can be major changes after impulse two, when the CW and France declare war, and can use each other's convoys. I would not worry about production until then. You can change production freely up until just before the final production planning step. Your resources that are used in trade agreements are locked into place at the start of the final production planning step, so get those resources right before final production planning. If you know you plan to move convoys around in a turn, don't bother setting production until you do so, as you are just wasting time doing things that you will have to redo. On the other hand, if you are unsure how many convoys you need, it can be helpful to do the production as you move the convoys, so that you can see where you need knew ones.

Of course, when I plan the Allied convoys, I use a spreadsheet, which makes things much easier. Computers count better than I do.

When you do production, no oil resources should be idle; you can always ship and save them somewhere. Some CW non-oil resources (Malaya!) will be idle; don't worry about that.

At the start of the game, your production multiple is only 0.5. You might consider giving up a BP to save two oil that will give you two BPs later.

In any case, check for rounding; when your production multiple is 0.5, you should only run an odd number of factories, because the next factory just consumes resources for no gain. This also applies when your production multiple is 0.75; one should never use the third factory in a group of four unless one is using all four, as, again, it does not gain any production.

Turn two will be very different, as the CW can and should send resources to France. Also, you have to decide which way to send build points -- to France, to make it hold out longer, to the CW, on the theory that the French are going down anyway, and it is better to build CW units, or no transfer, because you think the split is right the way it is. Note that this is a real strategic decision, and there is not an obvious correct answer; I know of players who send BPs to France, and others who send BPs to the CW.

[rkr1958]

Thanks guys! I ran through the interactive tutorial again on production planning. It only took me 5 minutes to refresh my memory on how to use the production form. Below is the result of my initial tinkering with CW production. I let the program do the heavy lifting (i.e., compute the route) but I did work through until I got the result below. The CW is now saving 4 oil per turn, 21 of 22 factories are producing and 79 of 81 convoys on map are being used.

Do I need to save more than four oil per turn?

I'm trying to recall (I need to look it up); but does green mean the changed routes are permanent until something change them? Or is it blue in which case the routes will go back to default at the end of turn?

[Shannon V. OKeets]

Green for Default, Blue for Override.

Once France falls, the Germans will be able to attack the convoys in the Bay of Biscay with submarines based in Brest and naval air units along the coast. That means the North Atlantic convoy route should be shifted to the Faeroes Gap (as happened historically). Making that happen can pose a serious problem for the Commonwealth. The convoys can't simply move from one sea area to another, so they first have to return to port - where they arrive disorganized. You either have to have a complete replacement fleet already in port to sail out into the Faeroes Gap, or you need to reorganize all the convoys, or you suffer serious losses to your convoys in the Bay of Biscay, or you tear your hair out with no resources getting through to the United Kingdom for a turn because there are no convoys in either the Bay of Biscay or the Faeroes Gap.

For that reason, some players prefer to start with some convoys in the Faeroes Gap and others in the Bay of Biscay. The downside of having convoys in the Faeroes Gap before France falls, is that they are more vulnerable to German submarines coming through the North Sea.

Like many decisions in WIF, there are arguments for both viewpoints and you get to "pick your choose".

[rkr1958]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Green for Default, Blue for Override.

Once France falls, the Germans will be able to attack the convoys in the Bay of Biscay with submarines based in Brest and naval air units along the coast. That means the North Atlantic convoy route should be shifted to the Faeroes Gap (as happened historically). Making that happen can pose a serious problem for the Commonwealth. The convoys can't simply move from one sea area to another, so they first have to return to port - where they arrive disorganized. You either have to have a complete replacement fleet already in port to sail out into the Faeroes Gap, or you need to reorganize all the convoys, or you suffer serious losses to your convoys in the Bay of Biscay, or you tear your hair out with no resources getting through to the United Kingdom for a turn because there are no convoys in either the Bay of Biscay or the Faeroes Gap.

For that reason, some players prefer to start with some convoys in the Faeroes Gap and others in the Bay of Biscay. The downside of having convoys in the Faeroes Gap before France falls, is that they are more vulnerable to German submarines coming through the North Sea.

Like many decisions in WIF, there are arguments for both viewpoints and you get to "pick your choose".

All these risk versus reward decisions, with no pat answers, seems to add a "richness" that I've yet to experience in my wargaming experiences. Winston Churchill was quoted as saying that the greatest threat to the survival of Britain in WW2 was from German u-boats. My impression is that MWiF (WiF) models this, and the Battle of the Atlantic, at both a detailed tactical and strategic level. I look forward to seeing how all this plays out and what grave mistakes I'm sure to make.

By the way, isn't setting up CW convoys in the Faeroes Gap to start with "exploiting" future knowledge that the CW wouldn't have, or certainly couldn't conceive happening? That is, the fall of France. I know ... we all exploit this knowledge in playing strategic WW2 games. [:)]

[rkr1958]

Just finished setup and I'm ready to start my first game of the Global War scenario. Below are the initial adjustment to production, with a focus on saving oil, for the remaining powers (i.e., CW is 3 posts up).

How does it look?

Honestly, making these adjustments and letting the program do the calculations was a piece of cake. [8D]

[rkr1958]

So in my first play of the Global war scenario I want to follow the historical timeline (sort of). I'll probably leave Norway alone; but other than that I plan to go after the countries Germany did and follow a Sitzkrieg strategy where I attack France in the Spring of 1940. Though, I plan to take care of Denmark, Holland and Belgium before that. Now in playing this strategy after the Soviets claim eastern Poland and the Baltic states I plan for the Germans to grant their claim on Bessarabia. My question is on their (i.e., the Soviets) claim on the Finnish border lands. Historically, the fight for these border lands is what I assume was the 1940 winter war between the Soviets and Finns, which eventually resulted in the claim being granted.

When playing out MWiF (WiF) historically, do you fight this winter war or do you immediately allow the claim?

I guess one advantage for the Germans in not allowing the claim is that the resources that the USSR supply to German is NOT reduced by 1.

If the Germans do not allow the claim but later enforce the peace, which effectively allows the claim, are resources the USSR supply to Germany still reduced by 1 or is that avoided by the winter war?

Are there any other motivations for fighting this winter war other than for historical reasons?

[paulderynck]

Personally, I don't claim the borderlands. My experience has been the Axis will often fight for them and although a distraction to their plans in the west, they can make things quite tough for the Russians, plus the US entry effect.

The advantage is the extra hexes can make it tough for the Axis to cut the rail line to Murmansk, but the above observation is based on using the Scandinavian map in the board game and of course those pesky Finn ski units have even more room to operate on the MWiF scale map. So if the rail line is getting cut anyway when Barb comes - why bother?

The Russians also get a buffer zone against an attack on Leningrad, but in Barb, they can't afford all the units to guard the RR line or even the buffer zone. Besides until Army Group North shows up south of Leningrad, a proper defense makes any lone Finn attack extremely risky for them.

[rkr1958]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

Personally, I don't claim the borderlands. My experience has been the Axis will often fight for them and although a distraction to their plans in the west, they can make things quite tough for the Russians, plus the US entry effect.

The advantage is the extra hexes can make it tough for the Axis to cut the rail line to Murmansk, but the above observation is based on using the Scandinavian map in the board game and of course those pesky Finn ski units have even more room to operate on the MWiF scale map. So if the rail line is getting cut anyway when Barb comes - why bother?

The Russians also get a buffer zone against an attack on Leningrad, but in Barb, they can't afford all the units to guard the RR line or even the buffer zone. Besides until Army Group North shows up south of Leningrad, a proper defense makes any lone Finn attack extremely risky for them.

So I take it that Claiming the Finnish Borderlands is one of those historical events that doesn't really make much sense gamewise from the risk / reward perspective? That is, what the Soviet's gain from the claim isn't worth the risk of getting bogged down in a fight with Finland. All of this seems analogous to Operation Weserubung (i.e., the German invasion of Norway). No matter how you slice it the rewards aren't worth the risks. That is, Germany getting bogged down in Norway when they need to be focusing on Case Yellow (i.e., Belgium, Holland and France).

So I take it most players as the Soviets don't try to claim the Finnish Border Lands, like most players as the Germans don't invade Norway?

[Courtenay]

I generally don't claim the Finnish border lands. Bessarabia I go for, because I don't expect the Germans to fight for it.

[paulderynck]

I have never invaded Norway. Caution: I may not be "most players". IMO that operation and the Winter War should not be forced down players throats anyway.

An objective evaluation of those events, I think, would find that they had little impact one way or the other, on the outcome of WWII.

[rkr1958]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

I have never invaded Norway. Caution: I may not be "most players". IMO that operation and the Winter War should not be forced down players throats anyway.

An objective evaluation of those events, I think, would find that they had little impact one way or the other, on the outcome of WWII.

That's very true; but historically those two events almost had a potentially disastrous impact. Churchill was lobbying PM Chamberlain to invade / intervene in Norway and use that invasion / intervention as a means to directly support Finland against the Soviets. If it wasn't for the fact that Finland agreed to a cease fire with the Soviets about a month before the German invasion of Norway (and the British / French intervention there) then it's quite conceivable that Britain could have been at war with both the Germans and the Soviets in 1940. I can't even fathom what course the war in Europe would have taken if that had happened.

But, I do agree that as the two events actually unfolded that they were non factors in the outcome of the war. Of course, they were significant factors to the folks directly involved.

[rkr1958]

These questions / observations concern oil. So I'm playing my first game with oil and I want to throw out what I think I've learned so far.

1. An Oil consuming unit only uses oil if it's disorganized at the end of the turn and you reorganize it?

2. So you can move and / or attack with an oil consuming unit and as long as it is organized at the end of the turn it uses no oil?

3. If a disorganized oil consuming units is reorganized by an HQ, which would be prior to the end of the turn, it would use no oil?

[Ur_Vile_WEdge]

To the Borderlands thing:

I'll usually demand the Finnish border, but not on the first turn. Not strong enough, too much bad weather, too ch of a chance of something going wrong.

I'll usually make the demand either M/J or J/A 40, when I have a para that can threaten to drop straight into Helsinki, and have my artillery by Leningrad, and something fast to flank around Lake Ladoga. Usually, that'll be enough to either smash Finland if they refuse my reasonable demands, so most of the time, I've sen the German player give me the turf, or more importantly the single resource less I have to give the Germans.

As Germany, Wehrmacht or not i have the Finns fight is solely dependent on how much force the Soviets have on the border and how able I am to ship stuff to the Finns.


Edit: Oh, and yes to all three of your above questions.

[paulderynck]

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

These questions / observations concern oil. So I'm playing my first game with oil and I want to throw out what I think I've learned so far.

1. An Oil consuming unit only uses oil if it's disorganized at the end of the turn and you reorganize it?

2. So you can move and / or attack with an oil consuming unit and as long as it is organized at the end of the turn it uses no oil?

3. If a disorganized oil consuming units is reorganized by an HQ, which would be prior to the end of the turn, it would use no oil?

You've hit on the eternal questions of RAW7 oil and whether the oil rule can someday be made more consistent with the use of oil-dependent units.

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Yes (edit --> yes, but the HQ will unless you in turn re-org it with an O-chit)

For now the oil rules are as per RAW7.

[rkr1958]

I'm finding in my first game that strategic bombing is something not to be ignored. On the first impulse France hit a German oil facility and knocked it out. On impulse 3 of turn 1 and at extended range the RAF hit a factory and reduced it by 1 point.

My question is I though I would be given a chance to added defense fighters to a hex being strategically bomb the same as a hex being ground struck. That is, if a defending fighter was in range I would be given a chance to fly that fighter to the hex. On one hex attacked (strategically), I had a fighter in range but wasn't given the opportunity to add it. What am I not understanding?

[composer99]

You may want to check the fighter's range to the hex. Is the hex within the fighter's interception range, that is, half its regular "speed"/range?

(E.g. for a 3-range Messerschmitt Bf109, its full range is 3 hexes and its interception range is 2 hexes; for a (IIRC) 5-range Bf110, the full range is 5 hexes and interception range is 3.)

If yes, then you may either have to check your settings or you have a bug, because fighters in interception range should be prompted to intercept.

If no, then you should check your combat air patrol (CAP) settings. As I recall, the default setting is that CAP is turned off for all major powers and most or all pertinent missions.

I do not recall at this time which menu to select to find CAP settings; either someone else can answer or it can be found in your manuals.

[rkr1958]

ORIGINAL: composer99

You may want to check the fighter's range to the hex. Is the hex within the fighter's interception range, that is, half its regular "speed"/range?

(E.g. for a 3-range Messerschmitt Bf109, its full range is 3 hexes and its interception range is 2 hexes; for a (IIRC) 5-range Bf110, the full range is 5 hexes and interception range is 3.)

If yes, then you may either have to check your settings or you have a bug, because fighters in interception range should be prompted to intercept.

If no, then you should check your combat air patrol (CAP) settings. As I recall, the default setting is that CAP is turned off for all major powers and most or all pertinent missions.

I do not recall at this time which menu to select to find CAP settings; either someone else can answer or it can be found in your manuals.

I was assuming the full range for interception and not the half-range rounded up! That's most likely the non-issue I was seeing. Thanks!

[rkr1958]

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

ORIGINAL: composer99

You may want to check the fighter's range to the hex. Is the hex within the fighter's interception range, that is, half its regular "speed"/range?

(E.g. for a 3-range Messerschmitt Bf109, its full range is 3 hexes and its interception range is 2 hexes; for a (IIRC) 5-range Bf110, the full range is 5 hexes and interception range is 3.)

If yes, then you may either have to check your settings or you have a bug, because fighters in interception range should be prompted to intercept.

If no, then you should check your combat air patrol (CAP) settings. As I recall, the default setting is that CAP is turned off for all major powers and most or all pertinent missions.

I do not recall at this time which menu to select to find CAP settings; either someone else can answer or it can be found in your manuals.

I was assuming the full range for interception and not the half-range rounded up! That's most likely the non-issue I was seeing. Thanks!

No that wasn't it? I have 2 "available" German fighter units adjacent to the hex being bomb by the French. The bomber is under the French fighter, which I sent along to escort the bomber. It turns out that this escort was unnecessary as I wasn't given an opportunity to intercept. So, once again I've confused myself? [&:]

[Centuur]

Germany should be able to intercept. Can you put a saved game in here at the start of the strategic bombardment phase, so we can investigate?

[rkr1958]

ORIGINAL: Centuur

Germany should be able to intercept. Can you put a saved game in here at the start of the strategic bombardment phase, so we can investigate?

Done.