Matrix Games Forums

The above table is my feeble attempt to put some structure to the multitude of (M)WIF gaming experiences including 1 (solo), 2 or 3+ players. I’ve also boldly expressed “my opinion” or assessment of gaming experience “outcome” for a number of game types versus number of players. I fully expect such an assessment on my part to generate a lot of disagreement and, actually I hope it does. Please feel free to let me know where I got the table and any or all of the following wrong.

I would say that most folks play (M)WIF as a game and the majority of those play it multi-player. I have no idea what that breakdown is and what the breakdown is between 2 & 3+ player games. And further what the breakdown is between non-competitive versus competitive games. My definition of non-competitive is a game played for the experience, including teachable moments and do overs with the main objectives to have fun playing the game and experience community the assemble group of players either physically or on-line. Now competitive play I would say is also fun for most players, maybe not such much by those “outgunned” by the more experienced and talent players. However; I say the biggest difference is that competitive play is focused on winning the game over the other players, even those controlling major power(s) allied to your side.

Now let me back up and talk about learning the game, working out strategies and working out tactics. Those are definitely valid plays but I dare say very few of such games go the distance. These are very specialized play to improve one’s ability and hence enjoyment of (M)WIF. Except for the smaller scenarios (e.g., Barbarossa, Guadalcanal), which I would dare say most folks move beyond after learning how to play and gaining experience to play well enough, (M)WIF is a major time commitment to play through to the bloody end. So, I don’t see folks playing these game types (learning, working out strategies, tactics) out to the bitter end in say a global war scenario. My experience has been that while you can learn the rules and learn how to push units around the map by yourself (i.e., solo) you need to have some play against more experienced (2 or 3+) player(s) to properly learn how to play the game well enough and learn proper strategy and tactics.

Now to my favorite game type which is counterfactual play of which I defined two types, historical competitive and historical fiction. Historical competitive is where each major power is played competitively within the framework of (M)WIF, optional & house rules with “gaming” decisions made for each major power against the political and historical record of the time. The goal is NOT to get the same outcome as the second world war but to simulate the situation and let it take you where it may. And hopefully it takes you to a place where the intermediate and final points are “believable” and “realistic” alternatives to the actual historical record. To me, as an amateur WW2 historian, it’s fun to argue how believable and realistic such alternative points are.

My last category is counterfactual (historical fiction). In this category one starts with a desired counterfactual outcome and sees what it takes within (M)WIF to achieve that outcome. They then assess whether the what it took is believable or not. Now the counterfactual (historical fiction) is NOT my cup of tea. My cup of tea is the counterfactual (historical competitive) simulation and that’s what I’ve been striving to accomplish with this current and previous solo games for some many years now.

One other thing I’d like to touch on is the subject of 1 player (solo) competitive and counterfactual (historical competitive) play/simulation. To me this means playing each side and/or major power to the best of your ability. But it also means (for me) establishing and playing to clear objectives supported by decision aids & algorithms that attempts to mitigate solo player biases & complete knowledge that is embedded in the 1000’s of decisions made for each major power throughout the war (or simulation). I’ve indirectly shared some of these with you throughout this game. I’m still developing them and tinkering with ones that were developed and used even at the start. As I move forward with this AAR, I plan to explicitly highlight such decision aids & algorithms. Ultimately, I would like to assemble enough such aids & algorithms to support a poor man’s, manual AI. That is, one that’s manually implemented through solo play.

I did find your whole-turn-at-a-time format a bit much to digest. I almost never read it straight at one go, and I suspect that missed things as I did read it. Smaller chunks strikes me as better.

Turn 22. Mar/Apr 1943. Initiative.

I’ve been working on and refining an algorithm to determine if a given side winning the initiative will move first or second and, if applicable & necessary, will request a reroll if they lose the first roll. But before I get to that algorithm and its results for this turn, I’d like to talk about a recently developed algorithm that will most likely require German to take at least one combine or naval action per turn with a good chance that it’ll be the first axis impulse of the turn. I’m specifically talking about newly revised house rule, or decision algorithm, HR 26.

HR 26. Battle of the Atlantic. (G 2141)

Germany and Italy when active and prior to 1944 must build out and repair their sub fleet. Each MP must build and/or repair a minimum of 3 or max possible subs per turn. Also, German & Italian subs get top priority for oiling during use oil prior to 1944.

Until Germany has taken a combine or naval action in a given turn, they must take one on the current axis impulse or successfully defer taking it. The choice to attempt to defer is voluntary and may be deferred if D10 >= U+S+A, U = # U-boat flotillas that threaten any sea area containing 6 or more CPs, S = # sea areas threaten containing 6 or more CPs and no escorting SCS in the 0-box and A = actual # of the current axis impulse of the given turn (i.e., 1,2,3,4, …). Threaten means a chance to find given weather and fight a sub or surface action against the 0-box. Escorting SCS means any SCS that could be included in a sub or surface combat.

With the objective of creating a more historical battle of the Atlantic result, HR 26 originally allowed Germany to move all organized subs in port to sea for impulses that Italy took a combine or naval. Also, under the previous version of HR 26, only Italy was allowed to search if Germany took a land and made such moves. Additionally, HR 7 originally allowed a major power that took a combine to move all organized subs in port to sea for free. HR 7 has now been completely rewritten consistent with WIF CE for moving subs. Specifically,

HR 7. Sub Move. (G 14)
An active MP that takes a combine may move any number of their subs from any number of ports and/or sea boxes to any number of ports or sea boxes for 1 naval move

Now back to HR 26. On the face of it forcing Germany to take at least 1 combine or naval per turn, and most likely on their very first impulse of the turn, seems harsh especially for the Eastern Front during 1941 & 1942, not to mention during spring/summer 1940 when Germany is pushing hard in to take out France. HR 26 originated from a thread I was following over in the WIF forum in Board Geeks. In that thread I was convinced by an argument a very experience WIF player made that to create historical BOA results Germany needed to take a combine on their first impulse each turn. Whether or not this was a winning strategy the player stated was not the point. The point was that if one wanted to recreate the historical BOA losses then that required German taking the combine per turn. I was convinced by that argument and hence the rewrite of HR 26 to what you see above.

Now that I’ve played a couple of turns or so with HR 26, I really like it for, not only what it does for the BOA, but surprisingly what it does for the Eastern Front. One valid criticism of (M)WIF supply (I believe) is that it’s too easy for the axis to supply their armies deep inside of the Soviet Union. By taking away one land impulse per turn and replacing it with a combine my feel is that this criticism is mitigated a bit. Before you come down too hard on me with regards of that’s now how supply should work, let’s talk about making the sausage; specifically, how the sub war is resolved. I think it’s clear to all amateur WW 2 histrions on this forum that the mechanics of how subs fight in (M)WIF is far off from how they actually fought. One simple example is that in history heavy cruises and battleships were targets for subs, not the sub (ASW) hunters that they are in MWIF. Also, the historical BOA was attritional and not the feast or famine that one usually sees in MWIF. However; I would argue that in the aggregate the BOA in MWIF plays out well versus history with regards to overall losses assuming the devotion of axis subs and allied naval assets to the Atlantic at historical levels. One possible exception may be the over use of NAV air in the early war versus the historical but that’s just a feeling. Please let me know what you think!

Now back to the initiative and major power voting (see below table). Each major power is given a number of votes, which are only active (i.e., count) when the MP is active (i.e., not neutral). Each MP may allocate any number of their (active) votes to move first. Also, if eligible for reroll, may allocate any number of their vote totals to move first to also reroll.

These votes are summed for all axis and all allied MPs to produce a set of initiative instructions. If the faction (axis or allied) vote total is 50% or greater for moving first then that faction will move first if they win the initiative. Similarly, if 50% or greater (of all active votes) for reroll then that faction will reroll if necessary.

For most major powers I divided their active votes across 2 or more commands, with each command deciding to move first and reroll (if applicable) in a greedy manner. That’s is in their command’s own best interest and independent of the best decision for other commands and major powers. On this particular turn I used the weather forecast for a number of major power commands to help allocate votes between moving first or not and/or rerolling.

In summary for this turn, the axis factions had a total of 275 active votes, with 68.73% (or 189 votes) cast for moving first. 0% axis votes were cast for a reroll because at Allied + 1, the axis was ineligible for a reroll. The allies with 400 active votes, cast 85.75% (343 votes) to move first. And 202 of those 343 votes cast to move first (or 50.5% of the 400 total votes) voted to reroll if necessary. Honestly, I was a bit surprised that the allies were willing and would request a reroll. If I hadn’t gone through this structured voting, I would NOT as the allies have made such a decision to reroll (if necessary). So, in my opinion, going through this structure and time spend to determine initiative instructions was worth it given my objective to keep my decisions such as these as bias free as possible. Roll #1.
Allies win the initiative on the 1st roll, no reroll was necessary, and elect to move first.

Turn 22. Mar/Apr 1943. Allied #1. Weather.

Snow in arctic & north temperate which allows for normal movement but impacts combat; just exactly what the Soviets & CCP wanted. However; the Western Allies were looking for fine in the Med for reasons that will soon become obvious and got rain.

Turn 22. Mar/Apr 1943. Allied #1. Actions.

Given the likely German combine next impulse I was tempted as the Western Allies for all three (CW, USA & Free France) to take a naval. This would allow getting full escorts and patrols out in the Atlantic and for the USN to continue their campaign against the IJN and IJN CPs (supply and production convoys).

But looking at the situation in the Balkans it’s obvious that a stalemate is developing with the allies mostly in the mountains and short of airbases. A stalemate that if they to break would start looking like the trench warfare of the first world war.

What to do to maintain/retain the initiative in the Med? I decide that a pivot to Italy with an invasion of southern/central Italy (i.e., Operation Husky). However; if the Western Allies all take a naval and stage the invasion forces such this impulse then this would give the axis an opportunity to react by moving land and more significantly air units to counter. Also, if the allies wait there’s a 10% chance for snow & 10% chance for storm, or 20% chance outright that they won’t be able to invade next (allied) impulse which would give the axis additional time to react to such a staging. Note that only Germany is required to take a combine, not Italy who could take a land to react next axis impulse. Also, after BOA escorts are sent out covering CPs in the 0-box, the required die roll (less than or equal) for forcing Germany to take a combine or naval drops from 10+ (100%) to 8 (80%). So, if the allies don’t invade this turn there’s a 20% Germany may also be able to take a land and jointly with Italy defend the open “beaches” looking so inviting to the allies right now.

In looking at the Pacific, the USN definitely wants to go after the IJN task force that stayed at sea in the China Sea and now in the 2-box. Last turn USN Subs supported by RN subs devastated Japanese CPs in the China Sea. Only an empty TRS left at sea in the 2-box is providing supply from Japan to may of their overseas conquests.

Also, in looking at the Pacific the medium priority directive to clear the Philippines looks to be an unnecessary momentum stopper. Japan has 2 strong stacks in Legaspi & adjacent that are for now fairly well contained but would require an herculean effort to clear especially unflipped.

USA JCS decides on the following shift in both the MTO & PTO with three new war directives and change of priority in another existing war directive. Also, the Western allies decide to launch Operation Husky this impulse even with the added risk because of the rain in the Med.

Allied actions are: Land – Free Fance, China, USSR. Combine – CW. Super-Combine-USA. The USA plays their first O-chit of the game leaving them with 2 on hand and another arriving next turn.

Turn 22. Mar/Apr 1943. Allied #1. Battle of the Atlantic.

• There are 8 U-boat flotillas each within detection range of one or more allied sea areas with 6 or more CPs.
• Even assuming SCS escorts in all these sea areas this means minimum 80% German will take a combine next (i.e., first) axis impulse.
• There’s also the threat of 2 KM surface raiders (BB Bismarck & Tirpitz).
• To manifest next (first) axis impulse would likely require a naval so the threat of surface raiders too can almost but not fully be ignored.
• In such a case (i.e., German combine), there are 6 Italian U-boat Gps in support of the 8 U-boat flotillas, which is a whopping 14 Euro-Axis Sub flotillas/Gps that will move out to attack allied Atlantic convoys.
• USA takes super-combine, CW combine but uses both naval moves for Husky in the Med & Free France takes a land, which leaves the Western Allies with limited ships and (naval) air to cover BOA ASW escort & patrol duties.
• Ships and naval air left on patrol (3-box) and escort (0-box) at the end of last turn, RN & USN naval air & USN Atlantic fleet.
• The chance to surprise the (euro) Axis and get ashore in southern/central Italy this impulse out weights the risks of limited ASW escorts & patrols facing what is likely (> 80%) to be German U-boat & Italian Sub Gp sorties next (axis) impulse.

Turn 22. Mar/Apr 1943. Allied #1. Battle of the Atlantic. Naval Air & Ship Moves.

Cape Verde Basin. Cape St. Vincent. Bay of Biscay. Faeroes Gap.

Turn 22. Mar/Apr 1943. Allied #1. Battle of the Atlantic. Naval Air & Ship Moves.

Norwegian Sea. North Atlantic. East Coast. Caribbean.

Turn 22. Mar/Apr 1943. Allied #1. Battle of the Atlantic. Naval Air & Ship Moves.

Central Atlantic. Mouth of the Amazons.

Turn 22. Mar/Apr 1943. Allied #1. Pacific Theater of Operation (PTO).

Short-Term (Impulse/Turn) Objectives (in order of priority).
1. Gain sole Control of China Sea.
2. Sink IJN CPs, Transports, Warships (South China Sea, China Sea).
3. Capture Sangihe Islands as block of IJN div in & staging area from with to capture Menado.
4. Capture Wewok (Territory of New Guniea).
5. Protect sea lanes and convoys against IJN I-boat threat.
6. Capture Hollandia and/or Sorong if SM weather permits.
7. Reinforce MacArthur (Philippines).


Bismarck Sea. Naval Moves, Disembark & Invasion.

Disembarks (black lines):
[1] Nimitz -> Truk (Moves his HQ from Pearl). Will reorg 3 newly deployed CVs that moved this impulse directly from San Diego to Truk.
[1] 3rd Cav corps reinforces MacArthur (7).
[1] 2nd Mar div -> island, NE1-Wewok (2).

Amphibious Invasion (red line):
[4] 1st USMC div -> Sangihe Islands (3), will be automatic at +21A (notional = 0).

Reserves Left at Sea:
[4] I Mar corps. If weather turns in South Monsoon (30% Fine or 30% Rain) can automatically invade Hollandia, Sorong. Regardless of weather can support assault on Wewok.
[4] US Army inf div -> also if SM weather turns, auto invasion of Hollandia, Sorong and regardless could support Wewok assault.
[3] AUS 2nd inf, USA XXX Mtn -> needs port, can reinforce Philippines or stay at sea waiting for port captures (e.g., Hollandia) for later turn (likely) assault to take Weoak.

Turn 22. Mar/Apr 1943. Allied #1. Pacific Theater of Operation (PTO).

IJN Sub Threat.
IJN Sub threat is limited given 3 Sub Squadrons but still a threat that needs to be addressed at some level by the USN. USN ASW Naval Patrols & Escorts (1/2).
To counter this "minimal" threat the USN responds with "minimal" ASW escorts and/or patrols in a large number of the following sea areas.

Southeastern Indian Ocean. The Solomons. Polynesia

Turn 22. Mar/Apr 1943. Allied #1. Pacific Theater of Operation (PTO).

USN ASW Naval Patrols & Escorts (2/2).

Persian Gulf.
USN ASW even in the Persian Gulf, though technically the Persian Gulf is in the Middle Eastern Theater. New Zealand Coast. Coral Sea. Hawaiian Islands.

Turn 22. Mar/Apr 1943. Allied #1. Pacific Theater of Operation (PTO).

USN ASW Naval Patrols & Escorts (2b/2).
Can't forget about Cape Naturaliste! USN ASW escort with RN NAV in pace to react out to 2-box if necessary. Not great but much better than none!

Turn 22. Mar/Apr 1943. Allied #1. Pacific Theater of Operation (PTO).

Naval Moves (concluded).
The USN decides to send an attack carrier task force to raid and capture control of the China Sea, their F-boat fleet to sink convoys in the South China Sea and to leave the Sea of Japan alone (i.e., not raid).

Sea of Japan. South China Sea.
Prior to the revision of HR 7, "Sub Move", 2 or so turns ago, the CW who took a combine would have been able to move all their in supply & organized sub Gps for free. The CW has 4 Sub Gps based in Saipan, which could have participated with the USN Sub Gps in attacking IJN convoys. However; with the revision of HR 7 consistent with WIF CE, it now costs 1 naval move to move any or all organized subs (at sea or in port). However; the CW used both of their naval moves off the Italian Coast in support of the allied Husky invasions. China Sea. USN Naval Combat.
China Sea.
Miss!

Turn 22. Mar/Apr 1943. Allied #1. Pacific Theater of Operation (PTO).

Naval Combat.
South China Sea.
Ouch, but good USN Sub damage control limits the losses to 1 Gp sunk, 0 Gps damaged & 2 Gps aborted. The sole remaining USN Sub Gp stays but does NOT commit (i.e., dives deep) to round 2. The remaining USN Sub Gp looks in hope that their brother RN Sub Gps will sortie to the South China Sea later in this turn and redeem their miserable performance.

Turn 22. Mar/Apr 1943. Allied #1. Mediterranean Theater of Operation (MTO).

Until now, when I've been posting in this AAR I've know the outcome of all combats for the turn. This is the first time this war (game) that I don't know the result of a significant combat operation. That is, I don't know the success or failure of the 2 Husky amphibious lands which are to take place. Also, one of the invasions will be supported by an airborne drop that the axis have an 8% chance of aborting, and if they do, would significant reduce the chance of success of the landing from an estimated 95.5% to 23%!

But I’m getting a bit ahead of myself. There’s a little of business I need to cover before I get to Operation Husky planning and then execution, which I will resolve and you will see in “real-time” in the hopes of conveying some of the tension I feel resolving such combats. Well, simulated tension as my warriors are not even cardboard and my maps paper but electronic bits! Still, a fun tension I hope.

Port Strike. Trieste.
[Snow, Mtn (Clear), Opposed] Baffin CAG(2/2=1) w/Mosquito MK II NF3(6) carry out a "diversionary" port strike versus the 2 RM ships in Trieste. This strike will be used to "rebase" off the Mosquito NF3 off the Royal Eng Mot div (YUG Mtn 66,45), which will allow the allies to embark this eng div without having to lose the RAF NF3(6). Also, it's expected to use up an Italian FB(2).

Surprise D10(Y/W=AX/AL): ITA=10, RN/RAF=5 -> RN gets 3 SPs, which they'll save for after the air-to-air battle. The air-to-air battle couldn't have gone (much) better for the RAF. The intercepting Italian fighter wing is shot down (PIL survives) and the Baffin CAG is cleared. The RAF Mosquito MK II NF3 rebases (returns to base) to Sardinia, thus freeing up the Royal Mar Eng for embarkation. Neither of the RM ships damage but the Baffin CAG did manage to flip the CA. Overall a highly successful "diversionary" port strike!

Turn 22. Mar/Apr 1943. Allied #1. Mediterranean Theater of Operation (MTO).

Naval Moves.
Well, let's get the West & East Med out of the way. There are subs and an RM BB threat to both. So, the USN sent some escort and patrol forces out in both sea areas. Also, there are US & CW air that can react (assuming they're not used in the upcoming Husky which definitely has priority).

East Med. West Med.

Turn 22. Mar/Apr 1943. Allied #1. Mediterranean Theater of Operation (MTO).

Operation Husky. Naval Moves & Attack Planning.
1. Husky invasion & bombardment task forces [4] & [3] and reinforcement task forces [3],[0] sent out off the Italian Coast.
2. Two allied armies ready to invade Bari (code named Blue Beach) & Cassino (Yellow Beach).
3. Yellow Beach will be an all UK operation with an estimated 82% chance of successfully getting and staying ashore (i.e., at least 1 of the 3 invading units survive). Maximum bombardment and ground support will be provided by the RN and RN/RAF, respectively. Yellow Back, is likely to be the trickiness of the two landing.
4. Blue Beach will be an multi-allied (USA, UK & Free French Operation) which SHOULD have a 95.5% chance of success. However; a critical piece of this landing is an airborne drop the US XXXIV para corps which is expected to be opposed by Luftwaffe and Italian CAP fighters. Bari is out of range of both the Italian F2 & Luftwaffe FB3 wings so CAP from both is necessary if the axis wish to contest the US airborne drop. Since the US can drop either in the day or night to oppose requires the axis to fly both day & night CAP. Since the Luftwaffe FB3 is twin engine (already suffers from that penalty) it's expected that the Italian F2 will fly the day CAP and the Luftwaffe twin-engine FB3 will fly the night CAP. By the way, I uncovered a bug in which I was unable to fly night CAP. I will report this bug in the beta forum and workaround it by "moving" the Luftwaffe FB3 to within reaction range of Bari thus being able to intercept the night drop.
5. It both landings are successful, estimated at 73.6% (good but far from great!), then all Italy south of the Yellow beach - Blue Beach ZOC-lock line will be cut off from rail, all German units (3 corps) will be isolated and if flipped will stay flipped.
6. This ambitious plan is intended to break the stalemate in the Balkans by pivoting to Italy in the hopes of knocking Italy out of the war.
7. But before that, it will force German & Italy (again) to react to the Western Allies taking some (more) pressure off the Soviet Union.
8. Well, assuming both Husky invasions are successful that is!
9. Can you feel the tension? Fun isn't it!

Turn 22. Mar/Apr 1942. Allied #1. Mediterranean Theater of Operation (MTO).

Operation Husky.
D-1 (8 hours prior to Dawn).
1. USN, RN, Free French invasion fleets stand ready off their respective yellow & blue beaches. Landing troops write letters to home and try to get some shuteye before the 3 am wakeup call the next morning.
2. US XXXIV para corps loads up on their C-47 wing in Malta, takes off and heads for their drop zones in support of the blue beach support drop zones.
3. In the air is a twin-engine Luftwaffe FB3 wing flying CAP. An Italian air wing was up the previous day in CAP.
4. RAF, USN, USAAF fighter wings are put of full alert waiting to respond in support of the US paradrop.
5. There's no turning back. Operation Husky is a go!

Turn 22. Mar/Apr 1943. Bari, Italy. Paradrop.

Combat Logs. Day CAP Resolution (none). Night CAP Air-to-Air (resolution) & Para Drop. Let me know if you think I was too cautious doing a night vs day drop? The pre-drop difference in weather or not the drop got through was 92% (night) vs 88% (day). Was the 4% increase in getting through worth the automatic flip of the airborne corps after combat and the reduce chance to knock down an axis fighter unit? Also, the night drop eliminate any chance of the US ATR, which was 4%, of being shot down.

By the way, my son's headed over and we're gilling steaks. So I need to stop for now and will resolve the Husky amphibious landings later this evening (my time). Also, let me know how you like this new AAR format.