GW Counterfactual Take 3.

[rkr1958]

Turn 22. Mar/Apr 1943. Eastern Front. Sevastopol Siege.

OKH -> OKW (Addendum). Sevastopol Siege -> maneuver, armies & artillery in place and wait for fine weather.

Note that artillery across the water cannot direct fire but can be used for indirect ground strike and/or ground support attacks. Gort has his units in place and now is waiting on the weather. He's hoping for more Luftwaffe support (rebase) but has no priority this impulse for any air actions to rebase such additional planes.

04-AX-Eastern-Sevastapol.png (839.56 KiB) Viewed 788 times

[rkr1958]

Turn 22. Mar/Apr 1943. Eastern Front. Grozny (Pre) Blitz Land Combat.

04-AX-Eastern-GSTK-Gronzy.png (356.46 KiB) Viewed 786 times

04-AX-Eastern-ParaDrop-Gronzy.png (308.71 KiB) Viewed 786 times

04-AX-Eastern-Gronzy-GSPT.png (315.54 KiB) Viewed 786 times

04-AX-Eastern-Combat-Logs-Pre-Gronzy.png (69.13 KiB) Viewed 786 times

[rkr1958]

Turn 22. Mar/Apr 1943. Eastern Front. Southern Russia. Grozny Land Combat.

04-AX-Eastern-Gronzy-LC-CL.png (22.42 KiB) Viewed 784 times

04-AX-Eastern-Gronzy-LC.png (229.83 KiB) Viewed 784 times

04-AX-Eastern-Southern-EOI.png (1.83 MiB) Viewed 784 times

[rkr1958]

Turn 22. Mar/Apr 1943. Axis #3. Italy & Balkans (End of Impulse).

Germany & Italy react to allied Husky Landings.

04-AX-Italy-Balkans-EOI.png (1.82 MiB) Viewed 782 times

[rkr1958]

Turn 22. Mar/Apr 1943. Axis #3. West Africa.

Niger Vichy Terr on the move towards an undefended Ouagadoguo, Upper Volta.

04-AX-West-Africa-EOI.png (1.35 MiB) Viewed 781 times

[Courtenay]

Turn 22. Mar/Apr 1943. Eastern Front. Sevastopol Siege.

OKH -> OKW (Addendum). Sevastopol Siege -> maneuver, armies & artillery in place and wait for fine weather.

Note that artillery across the water cannot direct fire but can be used for indirect ground strike and/or ground support attacks. Gort has his units in place and now is waiting on the weather. He's hoping for more Luftwaffe support (rebase) but has no priority this impulse for any air actions to rebase such additional planes.

Gort? There's a traitor!

[rkr1958]

Turn 22. Mar/Apr 1943. Eastern Front. Sevastopol Siege.

OKH -> OKW (Addendum). Sevastopol Siege -> maneuver, armies & artillery in place and wait for fine weather.

Note that artillery across the water cannot direct fire but can be used for indirect ground strike and/or ground support attacks. Gort has his units in place and now is waiting on the weather. He's hoping for more Luftwaffe support (rebase) but has no priority this impulse for any air actions to rebase such additional planes.

Gort? There's a traitor!

Bit a tired ... von Bock.

Lord Gort is in East Africa.

07-AL-East-Africa-SOI.png (1.26 MiB) Viewed 771 times

[Angeldust2]

Turn 22. Mar/Apr 1943. Eastern Front. Sevastopol Siege.

OKH -> OKW (Addendum). Sevastopol Siege -> maneuver, armies & artillery in place and wait for fine weather.

Note that artillery across the water cannot direct fire but can be used for indirect ground strike and/or ground support attacks. Gort has his units in place and now is waiting on the weather. He's hoping for more Luftwaffe support (rebase) but has no priority this impulse for any air actions to rebase such additional planes.

Gort? There's a traitor!

Bit a tired ... von Bock.

Lord Gort is in East Africa.
07-AL-East-Africa-SOI.png

Actually, the HQ unit leading the attack on Grozny is lead by GFM Wilhelm Ritter von Leeb, not by von Bock.

[rkr1958]

Gort? There's a traitor!

Bit a tired ... von Bock.

Lord Gort is in East Africa.
07-AL-East-Africa-SOI.png

Actually, the HQ unit leading the attack on Sevesastpol is lead by GFM Wilhelm Ritter von Leeb, not by von Bock.

You are correct. I can only assume the previous reporting errors are from some Reich disinformation operation the purpose of which I don't know.

[Centuur]

Bit a tired ... von Bock.

Lord Gort is in East Africa.
07-AL-East-Africa-SOI.png

Actually, the HQ unit leading the attack on Sevesastpol is lead by GFM Wilhelm Ritter von Leeb, not by von Bock.

You are correct. I can only assume the previous reporting errors are from some Reich disinformation operation the purpose of which I don't know.

Fake news...

[Angeldust2]

As I look at the way I’ve been doing this AAR with “massive” dumps (i.e., posts) at the conclusion of each turn I wonder if I’ve giving the casual follower too much to digest at one time. I know if I were such (that is a casual follower) that I would skim over, if at all, a lot of the earlier posts for a given turn probably just focusing only on the last page of posts that appear for a while until the next turn is posted.
I’ve decided at this point, until or if I decide differently, to post as I go. That is, to start posting an impulse or even less at a time. The implication of this is that posts for a given turn will no longer be group by theater but by impulse with theater(s) sprinkled throughout. I will; however, at the start and end of each turn continue with the summaries that I’ve been typically providing.

Knowing full well, this is most likely a minority opinion, I liked your former presentation (much) better. Basically, by sorting and describing the actions and counter actions per theater you provided a valued service to your readers, which now everybody has to do on its own. I also liked the compressed density, when you "dumped" a full turn at once. Yes, it took 60-90min to digest each line of your excel sheets, but I could always decide to take a brake or to continue in one go. Now it will take several days or a week for a full turn to be complete and for me it is probably too difficult to stay focused and to try to comprehend the developing situation in complete detail. I understand, it is less work for you and I still appreciate the scope of your mission and the effort to share with us.

[Angeldust2]

999-MWIF-Gaming-Experience.png

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.

I am interested in your evaluation of what you define as competitive game. Why do rate a two-player competitve game as only OK (same as solo game), but a 3+ player game as good? How must the 3 players distributed to the two sides, so you would call it good?
At this point in my learning curve I would call a two-player game played competitively as good and a solo game only less than OK.

[Angeldust2]

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 think, you are absolutely on the right track to lay the base for how a potential AI specifically developed for this game should work. If Steve would only be able/interested to cooperate with you and use your efforts, which you have contributed over the years ...

I have to say, your detailed AARs and the way you play in your solo games (thinking operationally and mission centric as opposed to just "counter pushing" over the whole board) is keeping me motivated and interested in the game.

[rkr1958]

As I look at the way I’ve been doing this AAR with “massive” dumps (i.e., posts) at the conclusion of each turn I wonder if I’ve giving the casual follower too much to digest at one time. I know if I were such (that is a casual follower) that I would skim over, if at all, a lot of the earlier posts for a given turn probably just focusing only on the last page of posts that appear for a while until the next turn is posted.
I’ve decided at this point, until or if I decide differently, to post as I go. That is, to start posting an impulse or even less at a time. The implication of this is that posts for a given turn will no longer be group by theater but by impulse with theater(s) sprinkled throughout. I will; however, at the start and end of each turn continue with the summaries that I’ve been typically providing.

Knowing full well, this is most likely a minority opinion, I liked your former presentation (much) better. Basically, by sorting and describing the actions and counter actions per theater you provided a valued service to your readers, which now everybody has to do on its own. I also liked the compressed density, when you "dumped" a full turn at once. Yes, it took 60-90min to digest each line of your excel sheets, but I could always decide to take a brake or to continue in one go. Now it will take several days or a week for a full turn to be complete and for me it is probably too difficult to stay focused and to try to comprehend the developing situation in complete detail. I understand, it is less work for you and I still appreciate the scope of your mission and the effort to share with us.

I appreciate the feedback and you following. So far, the vote, if there is one, is 1 vote in favor of the new format and 1 against. I’d be happy to go back to the old format if that’s the desire of the folks following. If you haven’t already, please let me know your preference.

My thinking in changing up to this new format was to “shake” thinks up a bit and hopefully get more community participation with respect to: (1) my strategy & tactics, (2) my attempt at a competitive counterfactual historical simulation experience and (3) solo playing and decision aids/algorithms.

The time involved f using this new format is greater than for the older format. So, again, I could go back to the old; however, I noticed a significantly less views for posts behind the last page of posts for a turn dump.

[rkr1958]

999-MWIF-Gaming-Experience.png

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.

I am interested in your evaluation of what you define as competitive game. Why do rate a two-player competitve game as only OK (same as solo game), but a 3+ player game as good? How must the 3 players distributed to the two sides, so you would call it good?
At this point in my learning curve I would call a two-player game played competitively as good and a solo game only less than OK.

This idea will probably appropriately go down in flames. But before I give my rationale in order not to taint anyone else's opinion, what if we get a community vote and then average to assess gaming experience. I encourage folks to express their opinion and if we get enough samples (i.e., people voting), I'll average and share the results.

999-Gaming-Experience-Voting.png (17.93 KiB) Viewed 709 times

[rkr1958]

Turn 22. Mar/Apr 1943. Allied #7.
(1) Weather. D10=8, weather clears across the globe except for rain in the Arctic. Adv=2, DRM=+0.
(2) Land Action - All allied MPs.
(3) 10% turn ends. 90% chance turn will continue & 90% chance Germany will have to take a combine/naval (combine assume if they do).
(4) That's an 81% chance that the Western Allies with minimum ASW escorts & patrols (RN & Free France yet to, and won't this impulse, move their Atlantic fleets out) will face 8 German U-boat flotillas & 6 Italian Sub Gps (combine assumed for Italy too).
(5) However; the need for Western Allied land moves in Italy, Balkans, West Africa, East Africa, Middle East and the Pacific; and land combats in Italy and the Pacific, tilt action choice (Western Allies) to land.
(6) So land actions all around for the allies.

07-AL-Weather-Actions.png (117.1 KiB) Viewed 680 times

Tibet in Arctic Weather Zone.
One thing that I've never noticed before that I noticed this time looking at the above (weather) and below maps is that Tibet and surrounding areas are in the arctic weather zone. By the way, does it ever rain on Mt. Everest? It's raining there now!

07-AL-Tibet-Arctic-WZ.png (1.52 MiB) Viewed 680 times

[Courtenay]

I have never played a game where anyone's units entered Tibet, and I don't even think I've ever seen anyone move a unit into Tibet,

[Orm]

This idea will probably appropriately go down in flames. But before I give my rationale in order not to taint anyone else's opinion, what if we get a community vote and then average to assess gaming experience. I encourage folks to express their opinion and if we get enough samples (i.e., people voting), I'll average and share the results.

999-Gaming-Experience-Voting.png

May I suggest that such a vote gets its own dedicated thread so that it is easier to follow. That is just my humble opinion, anyway.

xxxxxxxxxxx

And I will take this post as an opportunity to thank you again for your nice, and detailed, AARs. Thank you.

[rkr1958]

This idea will probably appropriately go down in flames. But before I give my rationale in order not to taint anyone else's opinion, what if we get a community vote and then average to assess gaming experience. I encourage folks to express their opinion and if we get enough samples (i.e., people voting), I'll average and share the results.

999-Gaming-Experience-Voting.png

May I suggest that such a vote gets its own dedicated thread so that it is easier to follow. That is just my humble opinion, anyway.

xxxxxxxxxxx

And I will take this post as an opportunity to thank you again for your nice, and detailed, AARs. Thank you.

Good to see you back! Hope all went well with your surgery and your recovery is proceeding well! Thanks for your kind words and suggestion. I will start a separate thread for a poll on gaming experience.

[rkr1958]

Turn 22. Mar/Apr 1943. Allied #7. The Eastern Front (Southern Russia).

07-AL-Eastern-Southern-Combat-Logs.png (66.06 KiB) Viewed 624 times

07-AL-Eastern-RAF-GSTK-A2A.png (214.87 KiB) Viewed 624 times

07-AL-Eastern-RAF-GSTK.png (334.51 KiB) Viewed 624 times

07-AL-Eastern-USSR-Arty-GSTK.png (332.26 KiB) Viewed 624 times