Battle of the Atlantic. Part 2.

[rkr1958]

Here are the raw numbers (CP losses) for my game. Unlike the real Battle of the Atlantic, this one is fought in spurts and at times when Germany and Italy can afford to take a naval or combine.

[paulderynck]

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

That works out to about 111 CPs at 200,0000 tonnes each assuming US losses are in the Grand Total, worse if not.

There have been stories on the forums about as many as 130+ CPs lost in a game of WiF. In my last RAW8 playtest game the CW had 70 out of 140 CW plus CW-minor CPs sunk. But the U.S. only lost a couple.

What do you think aborted CPs represent and how do they play into real war statistics?

I don't know if my experience is typical but for every 10 CPs sunk I'm seeing a little less than 7 aborted.

My guess is they simulate the disruption to merchant shipping caused by re-routing and delaying departure of convoys due to knowledge of areas where the wolf packs have recently been active.

Gamewise it disrupts the CP lines but does not cause a loss of BPs to replace what is sunk so it's a milder form of axis success.

When things are really bad in the BoA, the CW loses production to replace sunk CPs and loses production whenever insufficient resources get to the UK (assuming any oil reserve has been exhausted), plus loses the opportunity cost of what would have been built instead, plus loses the opportunity cost of what could be accomplished with its impulse action choice if it wasn't busy protecting, re-organizing and re-sailing the CPs.

[CanInf]

has anyone suggested giving the germans 2 naval moves in a combined? this may increase the viability of the U boat campaign. I also believe the germans did have 2 naval moves in WiF 5

[rkr1958]

ORIGINAL: CanInf

has anyone suggested giving the germans 2 naval moves in a combined? this may increase the viability of the U boat campaign. I also believe the germans did have 2 naval moves in WiF 5

I figure out through play with MWiF that u-boats moving from the same port can be moved to not only different sea boxes in the same area but to different sea areas entirely and this counts as only 1 naval move. So, if you can manage to keep all your u-boats (subs) stacked together in a single port it takes only 1 naval move to put them out to sea where ever they can reach.

[rkr1958]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

That works out to about 111 CPs at 200,0000 tonnes each assuming US losses are in the Grand Total, worse if not.

There have been stories on the forums about as many as 130+ CPs lost in a game of WiF. In my last RAW8 playtest game the CW had 70 out of 140 CW plus CW-minor CPs sunk. But the U.S. only lost a couple.

What do you think aborted CPs represent and how do they play into real war statistics?

I don't know if my experience is typical but for every 10 CPs sunk I'm seeing a little less than 7 aborted.

My guess is they simulate the disruption to merchant shipping caused by re-routing and delaying departure of convoys due to knowledge of areas where the wolf packs have recently been active.

Gamewise it disrupts the CP lines but does not cause a loss of BPs to replace what is sunk so it's a milder form of axis success.

When things are really bad in the BoA, the CW loses production to replace sunk CPs and loses production whenever insufficient resources get to the UK (assuming any oil reserve has been exhausted), plus loses the opportunity cost of what would have been built instead, plus loses the opportunity cost of what could be accomplished with its impulse action choice if it wasn't busy protecting, re-organizing and re-sailing the CPs.

What I'm finding out as the CW player is that probably 80% of their actions, focus and builds since the fall of France has been centered on dealing with the threat of German u-boats and Italian submarines. At one point, their spare (or unused CPs) got down to less than 2 of what they needed to keep their production going at 100%. And this was with maximum effort directed at dealing with axis subs, keeping their shipping lanes open and resources flowing. This was accomplished by the Germans and Italians with minimal impact to their war plans and actions in Europe. I'm really enjoying this gaming experience!!! [;)]

The only downside is this game is costing me a lot of sleep. Well, they say you don't need as much sleep as you used to when you get older. [8D]

[brian brian]

ORIGINAL: CanInf

has anyone suggested giving the germans 2 naval moves in a combined? this may increase the viability of the U boat campaign. I also believe the germans did have 2 naval moves in WiF 5

that has been suggested quite frequently I believe. the only loosening has been to allow all of the SUBs in one port to leave port to any destination for a cost of one naval move.

[brian brian]

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

At one point, their spare (or unused CPs) got down to less than 2 of what they needed to keep their production going at 100%. And this was with maximum effort directed at dealing with axis subs, keeping their shipping lanes open and resources flowing. This was accomplished by the Germans and Italians with minimal impact to their war plans and actions in Europe.

the real challenge for the CW can be preparing to send a lifeline to the Russians. Especially when a crafty German player left the Netherlands neutral.

conversely, if the European Axis threatened the CW convoy lines dramatically, it was partially at the expense of the size of the ground forces they will use to fight the USSR.

[rkr1958]

ORIGINAL: brian brian

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

At one point, their spare (or unused CPs) got down to less than 2 of what they needed to keep their production going at 100%. And this was with maximum effort directed at dealing with axis subs, keeping their shipping lanes open and resources flowing. This was accomplished by the Germans and Italians with minimal impact to their war plans and actions in Europe.

the real challenge for the CW can be preparing to send a lifeline to the Russians. Especially when a crafty German player left the Netherlands neutral.

conversely, if the European Axis threatened the CW convoy lines dramatically, it was partially at the expense of the size of the ground forces they will use to fight the USSR.

Brian,

(May I call your Brian or is it Brian Brian or Mr. Brian Brian [:)] )

This is the "calculus" I use in other strategic ww2 games, which may be totally off base in MWiF. I'll defer, and would love to hear, your expert assessment on it.

As the axis I try to achieve a balance between hurting both the Western Allies and the USSR enough to win. For me, right now, that means not being defeated at the end of July 1945. I've discovered (in other games) that if I focus on one faction (e.g., Western Allies) at the expense of the other (e.g., USSR) that I usually lose. So my calculus, especially after the fall of France is to "hurt" and / or "fend off" the Western Allies just enough to keep them out of Berlin by games end. Similarly, I look to achieve this on the Eastern Front against the Soviets too.

So with respect to the CW and then later the USA after the Fall of France, I can either invest in defensive units (e.g., fighters, AA divisions, garrisons, mils) to defend against their air raids and stop an early invasion. However, this strategy cedes a mini-initiative to the CW, which they might do to build up their offensive forces, take North Africa and have strong forces in position to land in Italy, along with the USA when they enter the war. Or, as the Germans / Italians, I can take part of that defensive investment and use it to buy u-boats and Italian subs to attack CW convoys and threaten their shipping lanes. My thought is that if I can force the CW to "waste" significant actions and resources parrying this threat, even if the u-boats don't disrupt significant resources, they will forestall CW offensive builds and actions for a year or even more.

Again, I'm no expert and will defer to your assessments and those of the multitude of better and more experienced (M)WiF players on this forum. [8D]

[brian brian]

Sure. Whatever choice you make comes at the expense of another choice. That's strategy.

A good way for the Axis to win the game is to break the Russians. A lot of Allies will give up with the Axis in Siberia and Turkey aligned, though the Allies can still win such a game. Going "All In" on Barbarossa is a way to achieve that. Let the Italian Army respond to CW initiative if necessary, and put so much pressure on the Russians that the CW has to do something to help alleviate the risk that Stalin's house of cards collapses under a really strong kick.

I think what you are seeing is that it is easy to attack the CW in the Atlantic until the summer of 1941. You build two less Panzer corps and you get 4-5 more SUBs.

But decisions in World in Flames have 2 costs - the Build Points of the units you select, and the limits on what you can do via your choice of Action type each impulse.

[rkr1958]

CP Losses Through End of 1942.

When the allies had thought the Battle of the Atlantic was over the axis showed them it wasn't last turn (Nov/Dec 1942). While the allies haven't lost any production because of German u-boats and Italian subs they have had to, and will need to continue to, invest in escorts and "spare" CPs.

The Nov/Dec 1942 turn was the second worst turn, in terms of CP losses, for the allies so far.