MWiF Global War Hot-Seat (AAR)

[Red Prince]

4 of 7

The South Turkish Border:

[Red Prince]

5 of 7

The Urals:

[Red Prince]

6 of 7

The Trans-Caspian Railway:

[Red Prince]

7 of 7

Siberia:

[Red Prince]

I was going to start on the CW fronts, but it is taking a while and I am nearing lunchtime again. For the moment, here's Burma, with India and E. Africa coming up next. That will probably be in a few hours or so.

[lomyrin]

ORIGINAL: Red Prince

ORIGINAL: Centuur

ORIGINAL: Taxman66

Steve, I'm not sure if this is a ghost of WiF past, but I recall there is (was?) a rule allowing a MP to build 1 cp (per?) in an aligned minor's home country.

RAW:

Put your on-map naval reinforcements into a port you control in the
unit’s home country. However, you can place 1 convoy point a turn in
either a Commonwealth home country other than the United Kingdom
or an aligned (not conquered) minor country [Note: this is only
possible if you are playing with Ships in Flames].

So Italy can put 1 CP in Persia.

Yup. And I've been building 1 per turn for the last 2 turns. I have 1 more turn to go to be sure I can trace supply through the Caspian and collect both Oil on the Persian Gulf. [:)]
-----
Edit: Sorry about the delay in continuing the game, by the way. I decided to take most of the weekend off.

Well, English is not my native language but I read the rule about the one convoy placement per turn as referring to a Commonwealth aligned minor country only.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: lomyrin

ORIGINAL: Red Prince

ORIGINAL: Centuur




RAW:

Put your on-map naval reinforcements into a port you control in the
unit’s home country. However, you can place 1 convoy point a turn in
either a Commonwealth home country other than the United Kingdom
or an aligned (not conquered) minor country [Note: this is only
possible if you are playing with Ships in Flames].

So Italy can put 1 CP in Persia.

Yup. And I've been building 1 per turn for the last 2 turns. I have 1 more turn to go to be sure I can trace supply through the Caspian and collect both Oil on the Persian Gulf. [:)]
-----
Edit: Sorry about the delay in continuing the game, by the way. I decided to take most of the weekend off.

Well, English is not my native language but I read the rule about the one convoy placement per turn as referring to a Commonwealth aligned minor country only.

I had actually read through the code for doing this (which works correctly to the best of my knowledge), but forgotten that the rule existed. By the way, Ships in Flames is integral to MWIF; so this isn't an optional rule.

A better wording would be:
... you can place 1 convoy point a turn in either an aligned (not conquered) minor country
or a Commonwealth home country other than the United Kingdom. [Note: this is only
possible if you are playing with Ships in Flames].

[dragon_troop]

Any railroad artillery in the pipeline? That 6 bombardment factor might come in handy for Leningrad or Rostov.

[brian brian]

well of course it is worthwhile to attack Russia from as many directions as the other Allies will let you. my point was that Guderian, Germany's best HQ in a 1941 Barbarossa, and three more panzer corps could have accomplished far more on the steppes of the Ukraine than in the mountains of Persia. A force like that is the reason I suggest the Russians operate with two lines, infantry in front, and their armor reserve in back with it's own independent air cover that can actually stop a major breakout by the fast HQ-A's, Rommel and Guderian, as long as they don't have time to bring up their own air cover. they can't take on double stacked Russian tanks very well without it. von Bock and 4 good German INF corps could have achieved the same results in Perisa in this game. Germany's best play is to take some risks and try to overrun/block factories before they can rail out, something they did not achieve in this particular game, near as I can tell. Normally that would hurt them later, but the Russians failed to save any oil to make the factories even all that important anyway.




in that battle last turn with the Soviet ARM, why were the Germans able to take their ART unit as a loss during a blitz table battle?

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: dragon_troop

Any railroad artillery in the pipeline? That 6 bombardment factor might come in handy for Leningrad or Rostov.

Welcome to the forum. [:)]

[Orm]

that battle last turn with the Soviet ARM, why were the Germans able to take their ART unit as a loss during a blitz table battle?

This AAR is played with the 1d10 land combat table (with blitz bonus option). There the attacker picks its own losses regardless of the attack table.

[Red Prince]

ORIGINAL: Orm

ORIGINAL: dragon_troop

Any railroad artillery in the pipeline? That 6 bombardment factor might come in handy for Leningrad or Rostov.

Welcome to the forum. [:)]

As Orm says, welcome to the forum. In fact, he suggested I build one of these this turn, but with the O-chit I was a little short on BP. I plan to build one of them at the end of the coming turn, but it may arrive too late for the assault on Leningrad. Rostov really shouldn't need it. It would be very useful for getting rid of Allied beachheads, though (which is why Orm suggested it).
-----
Friends, I'm afraid I need to take a little time off from this. It has nothing to do with the game -- it's just that I need a little time to work on things less demanding on my concentration abilities for a few days. I'll try to add a few pictures each day potraying the situation as it stands now, but I don't expect to make a lot of progress . . . or even to really begin this turn . . . until the end of the week.

I haven't posted pictures yet for this, but I expect to run the first impulse as follows:

CW: Naval or Combined
France: Combined
USA: Naval or Combined
USSR: Land (mere chance of Combined)

For the CW and USA, a Combined action would let me take advantage of the Fine weather to evacuate France and debark the American units during the same impulse. That makes sure they remain organized. For the CW, it also lets me take back Tanganyika by capturing the capital of Dar es Salaam. The choice will depend on how many TRS are needed from seperate ports in order to make the evacuation happen. I am pretty sure I set up the Return to Base moves so that it would take only a single Naval Move for each of the 2 majors to get the job done.

The USSR option to take a Combined instead of a Land impulse is going to be based on the expected threat from the Turks. In the Caucusas, there isn't a lot of safe space left. A Combined Action to take out the Germany convoys in the Baltic might force them to take a Naval or Combined of their own at some point this turn, which they really don't want to do. That is a victory of an impulse, and that is a victory -- period.

At some point, the CW and USA will both need a pure Naval Action to send out more convoys. If I can figure it out correctly, I now know a way (I think) to work around the overseas lend-lease bug. That means that if I have the convoys set up this turn, I can begin sending BP to both the USSR and France at the beginning of next turn. It might take a little extra time to get it to work properly, but I don't mind that if it lets me more accurately portray this part of the game. With so much to think about over the last few turns, and with a temporary shortage of Allied convoy points, I hesitated to try this until now. MWiF is nearly as complex as WiF FE, and it's hard to keep everything in my head -- even when I have typed out exactly what needs to happen in my notes for each turn.
-----
Even with the turn starting off with Fine weather almost everywhere, I still expect it to be a fairly short turn, and I want to keep my priorities straight. This is what I have for each major power:

CW/USA: Evacuate France, put together strong stacks for deployment in the near future, attempt to dislodge the Italian fleet, finish the convoy pipelines
France: Not much, really
USSR: Disrupt the German lines and economy if possible, hold Tashkent and the Urals, preserve strong units in and around Tiflis and Baku

Germany: Advance deeper into the Urals region, try to eliminate key units in the Caucasus, reinforce Western Europe, prepare to finish off the Russians
Italy: Advance on Tashkent, support the Causcasus campaign, reinforce Egypt and Morocco
Japan: Advance into India and Siberia, begin preparing better perimeter defenses, expand in the Pacific as opportunity permits
-----
So, these are the things to think on over the course of this week. I know I have hesitated to begin an Allied campaign from the Spanish Sahara, but I'm loosening up to that idea. I think France is out for now, and I'd still like to see if I can do something in the mountains of Spain and the clear terrain in Portugal, but if that looks too difficult, an early 1942 campaign in Africa may be the way to go. That puts a lot more pressure on Italy. While it means that Germany can sit back a little easier, it will still need to supply troops to assist the Italians.

Anyway, I will continue to watch what happens here, and I'll add new images as time permits, probably covering the deployment of troops for a nation each day or two. As always, thank you for your interest, support, and critiques. I appreciate them all.

-Aaron

[Red Prince]

ORIGINAL: brian brian

well of course it is worthwhile to attack Russia from as many directions as the other Allies will let you. my point was that Guderian, Germany's best HQ in a 1941 Barbarossa, and three more panzer corps could have accomplished far more on the steppes of the Ukraine than in the mountains of Persia. A force like that is the reason I suggest the Russians operate with two lines, infantry in front, and their armor reserve in back with it's own independent air cover that can actually stop a major breakout by the fast HQ-A's, Rommel and Guderian, as long as they don't have time to bring up their own air cover. they can't take on double stacked Russian tanks very well without it. von Bock and 4 good German INF corps could have achieved the same results in Perisa in this game. Germany's best play is to take some risks and try to overrun/block factories before they can rail out, something they did not achieve in this particular game, near as I can tell. Normally that would hurt them later, but the Russians failed to save any oil to make the factories even all that important anyway.


in that battle last turn with the Soviet ARM, why were the Germans able to take their ART unit as a loss during a blitz table battle?

Actually, the Russians were able to save some Oil in the East. In fact, even with the losses of the last turn, they had a higher production rate (using saved oil) than they did in the previous turn, due to the railed factories. Granted, they don't have enough oil to last for many more turns, but they do have some. I just haven't posted images of all of it. I know it feels like a lot of their Oil Points were captured -- and they were -- but the number captured amounts to only about 20% of the Oil they did manage to save.

As I said before, the reason Guderian and his fast units were chosen for the duty in Persia wasn't because they were the best units for the job, but because they were the ones in the best position to get where they needed to go in time for Barbarossa to begin. HQ-I von Bock and his INF Corps were not. It was a short winter last year, and the general opinion of the forum was that the war should begin at the first beneficial opportunity, even if that was in M/A '41, which it was. That gave me just 4 impulses to get everyone where they needed to be, and I only had 2 Italian TRS to work with in the Med. Meanwhile, the Italians had other things they needed to do. So, while it may not have been the best deployment, it was the best I could do with what I had . . . given the goals I set out to achieve.

In conclusion, you are right that Guderian might have been more useful in the Ukraine. But only if he could be there in time for Barbarossa, and only if someone else could take his place. At the time, all the troops that went to Persia were already over the Straits of Gibraltar into Africa. Only 1 unit per turn can rail across a straits hexside. They never would have made it back in time. In the final result, everyone involved in the campaign managed to get the job done.

A game of MWiF (or WiF FE, I imagine) never gives you exactly what you want at the precise time you want it. Instead, you work with what you have. That's what I did.

[Klydon]

While not the best units for the job, Guderians force was able to accomplish things on a strategic level beyond the effect of their numbers/force. By draining the Russian main front, they made a huge difference all out of porportion to the force they represented.

In short, you can have as many attackers as you want, but if the front is restricted in size, it makes it much easier on the defense to delay and plug things up. Very effective use of forces to "stretch" the front to the point it broke completely.

[WIF_Killzone]

Thanks Red prince for all your postings and responding to all the comments and suggestions on your AAR, I think a lot of people have really appreciated it.

Enjoy your time off, this game can totally consume ones mind until its a little mush-puddle, I can totally see why a break is warranted. Remember its just a diversion for many of us, so don't overdue it.

Cheers

Craig

[Red Prince]

ORIGINAL: Klydon

While not the best units for the job, Guderians force was able to accomplish things on a strategic level beyond the effect of their numbers/force. By draining the Russian main front, they made a huge difference all out of porportion to the force they represented.

In short, you can have as many attackers as you want, but if the front is restricted in size, it makes it much easier on the defense to delay and plug things up. Very effective use of forces to "stretch" the front to the point it broke completely.

ORIGINAL: WIF_Killzone

Thanks Red prince for all your postings and responding to all the comments and suggestions on your AAR, I think a lot of people have really appreciated it.

Enjoy your time off, this game can totally consume ones mind until its a little mush-puddle, I can totally see why a break is warranted. Remember its just a diversion for many of us, so don't overdue it.

Cheers

Craig

My thanks to both of you, and to everyone else who has been involved. It has been a very fun AAR to explore for me (even when I've felt frustrated at times).
-----
I agree with Klydon that Guderian's role on the strategic level was a major coup for Germany. Until overseas supply was established, there were only a few hexes that could be attacked (3 of the 5 primary defensive hexes, I think), and none could be hit with "safe" odds that might allow all 4 Corps level units to survive. However, the threat itself did ineed "stretch" the main front from the very start of Barbarossa.

While the earlier post from brian brian is correct -- that the force would have been more ideal if it were made up of INF units and HQs, I think a case can be made that the Soviet defense did not retreat early enough or far enough each impulse due to the German shortage of Blitz-units on the main fornt. The ratios, if I remember correctly, were about 1/3 of the Soviets committed to holding the Persian mountains, and only 1/10 of the Germans (though they eventually had help from the Italian INF and MIL units. This resulted in the main front Soviet forces being enormously out-numbered. Even without the ability to blitz regularly, and even though half of the German Luftwaffe didn't reach the front lines until some time after the war began, the defenses were responding to the speed of INF units to set up a lot of stop-gap measures. At the start of each turn, a few more German armor came onto the map. By J/A '41, I think there were a total of 10 Blitz units on the main front, and the Soviet failure to pull back to the Don early enough allowed them to reach the front more quickly, since the front was still relatively close to Germany.

As we've all seen, I'm not very good at setting up defenses yet. I make mistakes that can be real trouble (can't wait to see how that might mean the downfall of Germany, Italy, or Japan). Therefore, the above paragraph should be taken with a grain of salt. It is my opinion that the Soviets should have pulled back to a safer location earlier, but I may not be correct. The way the defense was run, in fact, might have been exactly what was called for with the limited units available. It may simply have been a hopeless situation.

I know my decision to use these particular forces to try to activate Turkey was not popular, and my response was essentially: you may be right, and I may be wrong, but we'll never know if I don't try it. My conclusion is: in this game I was right, but I could just as easily have been wrong. The attack rolls in Persia helped out a bit here. The only conclusion I can make that is probably accurate, is that for a 1941 Barbarossa any units you can get over to Iraq to threaten the Caucasus will be worth it. This, of course, relies on a Closed Med and probably on a game that doesn't run with Vichy France. It also relies on risking an early entry of the United States by blowing through the Low Countries in 1939 and not stopping in 1940 until Europe is completely conquered. (It also helps to have a completely inept player running the CW -- me!) If this were a standard 36-turn game, I might have played it differently, but I still think I would have put pressure on the CW as early as possible, and in as many places as possible, so that some part of that empire will have to crack before it can be reinforced properly.

In defense of the defenses, though, I will say that there were probably 4 or 5 key attacks that Germany probably shouldn't have had as much success in, and 2 of these (that I can remember) were "miracle attacks". Those 2 were the attack on Zhukov and a spectacular round of Ground Strikes that disorganized 9 of 11 targets. Both had a good chance to succeed, but the attack on Zhukov had very slim chances of leaving the attackers organized, and the Ground Strike was just astoundingly successful. For most of the other attacks made on the Soviets, the Germans managed to get odds of 5:1 or better, often with positive die roll modifiers, so it isn't really a surprise that they were successful. I do think that the Germans only had 2 or 3 rolls of '1' on the attack dice, though. That definitely helped out.
-----
WIF_Killzone is also right. After conducting the first 4 turns of the war, running for a total of 37 impulses (19 Axis, 18 Allied), my mind is a little mushy. My first day of doing nothing with MWiF has improved things a lot, though, so I'm going to spend a little time putting together a few more shots of the Commonwealth theatres. Then I'm going to go back to being a non-thinking zombie for most of the day. [:)]

First, though, I want to give some figures for the length of turns so far this game. According to the WiF FE Scenarios Booklet, the average turn length is:

• Jan/Feb = 5.6 impulses
• Mar/Apr = 6.0 impulses
• May/Jun = 8.6 impulses
• Jul/Aug = 9.2 impulses
• Sep/Oct = 7.5 impulses
• Nov/Dec = 6.6 impulses

So far in this game, through S/O '41 (13 turns), the averages are:

• Jan/Feb = 5.0 impulses
• Mar/Apr = 6.5 impulses
• May/Jun = 13.0 impulses
• Jul/Aug = 11.0 impulses
• Sep/Oct = 8.0 impulses
• Nov/Dec = 5.5 impulses

Granted, it's only a little over 2 years to go on, but you can see that the summers have been longer and the winters shorter than the average. Early in the war, this definitely helped the Axis a lot. According to the averages, there should have been 94.5 impulses so far. There have actually been 106 so far. That's 12% above average, and in all the "wrong" places for the Allies:

• Jan/Feb = -10.7%
• Mar/Apr = +8.3%
• May/Jun = +51.2%
• Jul/Aug = +19.6%
• Sep/Oct = +6.7%
• Nov/Dec = -16.7%

As for total impulses, the Axis has had 55, and the Allies have had 51. The Axis has had 4 double-moves, and the Allies have had 1 double-move. And, for the first 14 turns, the initiative has gone to:

• S/O '39 = Axis
• N/D '39 = Allied
• J/F '40 = Axis
• M/A '40 = Allied
• M/J '40 = Axis
• J/A '40 = Axis
• S/O '40 = Allied
• N/D '40 = Allied
• J/F '41 = Allied
• M/A '41 = Axis
• M/J '41 = Allied
• J/A '41 = Axis
• S/O '41 = Allied
• N/D '41 = Allied

That totals 6 turns with Axis initiative, and 8 turns with Allied initiative. Since the first turn is automatically an Axis initiative turn, that means the die rolls have favored the Allies at a rate of 8-5, and they have still managed to swing the Initiative Track from +2 in favor of the Axis to +1 in their favor. That's because the Axis has lost 1 on the track 6 times for moving first and last in the same turn, while the Allies have only lost 1 on the track 2 times. Also, each side has demanded a re-roll only once.
-----
Enough mindless statistics. Time to get some images of the CW situation prepared.

[Orm]

[&o][&o][&o]

Thank you for this summary.[:)]

[Centuur]

I agree with you that a 1941 Barbarossa which also includes an attack out of Persia is extremely difficult to defend against. However: the USSR isn't dead yet (but might be mortally wounded, since they are about to lose one of the two key area's they should defend at all costs). Yes, winter is coming, but it might be too late for them to recover.

In 1941 the low number of USSR units means that it can't afford an extra front (like Persia) to defend. The defense of the USSR starts in Egypt, the Med and even in France. A closed Med in 1940 is deadly to the Allied cause.

The forces Germany used in Persia were indeed composed of units normally not very effective in mountains. However: the USSR couldn't affort to extract units from that theater, because at that moment the Germans were capable of breaking that line. I don't agree with players who want to wait until M/J to attack the USSR. You should attack, as soon as things are ready. When weather is reasonable (snow is reasonable to attack in), you can (and should) attack in M/A. The position of Guderian and his corps was in Morooco end of 1940, so it was indeed a good decision to move them towards Persia, since you needed the build up there to go as fast as possible. It would have taken at least two more turns to get them into Poland and vBock and INF corps in Persia. Time is precious for the Axis at start and shouldn't be waisted to get the right forces at the right places, if that means attacks are going to get delayed.

An attacker has benefits when he can attack on a wide front. The longer the better. It hasn't got to do with luck at all that the USSR is in a very bad position. The USSR was going to get into a very difficult position the moment the French weren't Vichied so early in 1940.

Mistakes were made, yes. This game isn't a normal WiF game if it is played between experienced players too. However: it is a typical game we might see in MWIF because of new players who will be amazed what is possible in this game. I would like to go up against Red Prince and other newbie players, since the best way to learn to play WiF is to play the Axis against players who know how to defend.

[Red Prince]

Okay, it's time for the CW positions for the start of N/D '41 (Turn #14). There isn't really a lot to show. I've already shown the situation in Burma and near Chittagong (post #2425 on the previous page), and though it doesn't show in either that image or this one, there is also a GARR in Calcutta.
-----
1 of 5

Central India:

[Red Prince]

2 of 5

East Africa: