GW Counterfactual Take 3.

[rkr1958]

Turn 3. Jan/Feb 1940. Victory Totals.

[rkr1958]

Turn 3. Jan/Feb 1940. Game Logging, Metric Keys. So Far.

(1) I'm attempting to capture a lot of different data on a lot of different items in the same 6 columns.
(2) I have 28 sets of Metric Keys that I defined (so far) and (hopefully) are following.

[rkr1958]

(1) I do realize that I'm playing at a snails pace but I'm having a blast.

(2) I'm trying not to let my documentation fixation degrade my strategic and tactical play quality too much.

(3) On the upside I'm finding that having a set of well defined conditions for DOWs, Claims, strategies (hopefully) captured in my House Rules and, especially my, MP War directives has enhanced both my counterfactual, and especially my solo play experiences.

(4) I'm trying to thread that needle between the historical, counterfactual and the wargaming with minimum scripting.

(5) Back to the WAR directives. I'm trying to write them at the Joints Chief of Staff level, interpret them at a theater commander level and execute them at a Army Group, or Naval Task Force, commander level. Sort of like Steve's final vision of the MWIF AI. But a heck of a lot slower than any computer AI would be.

(6) I'm doing all the above while trying to remain faithful to proper (M)WIF strategies and tactics. My hope is that this results in a decently played solo game that produces a counterfactual narrative that's credible against the historical record.

(7) I probably should have named this AAR (game), "Threading the Needle" instead of "GW Counterfactual Take 3".

(8) In the end, don't look to my play for how to play MWIF well. But I believe you can look to my play for how to have fun playing MWIF!

[rkr1958]

Military Analysis, Reports & Situations (MARS).

(1) I've always loved coming up with, or at least trying to, catchy anonyms.

(2) To date, including the very start of my next turn (turn 5, MA40), I've logged 9 planning, contingency, assessment reports under various anonyms (MPA, MRA, etc).

(3) I've decide to be a bit more formal and capture them, similar to MPs WAR directives, under the anonym MARS and number in sequence from 1, 2, 3, etc. for each MP.

(4) Below is an example of the 9 reports re-categorized as such.

(5) There probably other, possibly several, log entries that could, should and might well be included in a MP's MARS collection. BOA threat assessments & RN ASW escort & patrol game logs are one example that comes to mind. I will likely go back and reclassify such as I get the chance.

(6) My goal is to have another narrative log sequence that we (me) can go back and see the progression of the war wrt/MP throughout the game.

(7) In USSR-MARS-3 (latest entry to date) I also added a counterfactual element.

[Orm]

Turn 3. Jan/Feb 1940. End of Turn. Destroyed & Damaged.

99-Destroyed-Damaged.png (87.48 KiB) Viewed 583 times

The picture text says that CW lost 4 BPs this turn. One LND2, and one Pilot. Why isn't the two CPs included that are listed as lost for CW? Thus making the CW BPs consumed to -17.

Also. Wouldn't it be easier to follow what happened if the CW BP gain from Netherlands aligning were listed in the column added/free? Thus separating it from the Destroyed/Lost column?

Maybe this has been explained previously and I simply forgotten it. Or missed it.

Edit: I suppose that the lost CW CPs are not counted because they are from Netherlands? However, shouldn't they be listed as added, and then lost? Also, I have trouble getting the gained BPs from Netherlands to such a low number as 23. Isn't the NEI units counted? The Dutch pilot?

[rkr1958]

Turn 3. Jan/Feb 1940. End of Turn. Destroyed & Damaged.
99-Destroyed-Damaged.png

The picture text says that CW lost 4 BPs this turn. One LND2, and one Pilot. Why isn't the two CPs included that are listed as lost for CW? Thus making the CW BPs consumed to -17.

Also. Wouldn't it be easier to follow what happened if the CW BP gain from Netherlands aligning were listed in the column added/free? Thus separating it from the Destroyed/Lost column?

Maybe this has been explained previously and I simply forgotten it. Or missed it.

Edit: I suppose that the lost CW CPs are not counted because they are from Netherlands? However, shouldn't they be listed as added, and then lost? Also, I have trouble getting the gained BPs from Netherlands to such a low number as 23. Isn't the NEI units counted? The Dutch pilot?

Good catch on the Dutch PIL (2 BP). I forgot to include that gain.

Now for the others it's just a bookkeeping convention that should produce the same result. For minor countries attacked and then aligned to a major power, I don't count gains until after the conquest & peace phases of that turn. So only units that are still on the board or coming in as reinforcements are counted (as gains). Last turn I didn't have to count the Finnish units because Finland and the USSR came to peace on the same turn that the Soviets attacked them. But they should have been included this turn, which I forget. So another error on my part! FIRE THE BOOKKEEPER!

Now for countries aligned that are not attacked (e.g. Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria, Finland) those units are added in as soon as their country is aligned.

I'll be issuing a revised economic report for last turn very shortly now.

[rkr1958]

The Dutch pilot?

Wait a sec ... am I missing something? The Dutch don't have any planes; therefore don't have any pilots, do they? So unless I'm missing something, or miscounted, I think I got the Dutch gains included correctly?

Now, I did miss adding the Finnish units to Germany's gains so definitely a revised economic report for last turn is still coming.

[rkr1958]

The Dutch pilot?

Wait a sec ... am I missing something? The Dutch don't have any planes; therefore don't have any pilots, do they? So unless I'm missing something, or miscounted, I think I got the Dutch gains included correctly?

Now, I did miss adding the Finnish units to Germany's gains so definitely a revised economic report for last turn is still coming.

Oh ... I see where you're coming from now wrt/Dutch PIL & Plane. It was slated along with the Amsterdam MIL to come in as reinforcements on the next turn. However; they were removed (along with the PIL I assume?) because the Netherlands were partially conquered. The NEI MIL did come in and I believe (but need to confirm) was included in the economic report but not as a gain for the turn losses. I think to be consistent with my bookkeeping approach gains for attacked minors should not be included in the loss reports, because they're technically not gains until after the conquest & peace steps. However; aligned minors (not attacked) will be because they're immediate gains.

[Orm]

The Dutch pilot is actually added as a CW pilot. So it should be added even if the Netherlands plane is not.

Also, the NEI has both a TERR and a MIL, and I assume both are counted.

[rkr1958]

The Dutch pilot is actually added as a CW pilot. So it should be added even if the Netherlands plane is not.

Also, the NEI has both a TERR and a MIL, and I assume both are counted.

Ok another revision for the economic summary (need to include the PIL). I did include both the Terr & MIL. Thanks!

[rkr1958]

The Dutch pilot is actually added as a CW pilot. So it should be added even if the Netherlands plane is not.

Also, the NEI has both a TERR and a MIL, and I assume both are counted.

Barring further errors or miscalculations on my part here are the revised loss summary & economic report for last turn.

[Orm]

So Germany has + 45 for Finland, and then -45 for Finland. How can that end up as a -45 total. What am I missing?

[rkr1958]

So Germany has + 45 for Finland, and then -45 for Finland. How can that end up as a -45 total. What am I missing?

Economics are only tracked as a function of major power. Minor power economics, if/when included, are included in their aligned to MP. So Finland's 45, actually 46 BP because I miscounted once again!, "belong" to Germany. Finland has no economics apart from Germany. The same applies to all minor powers. That is, minor powers have no economics apart from the MP to which they are aligned.

[Orm]

Germany had a post with 45 added, and anther post with 45 subtracted, so I expected the total to be zero. Instead the total was a negative 45, and I wondered why it was a -45 for Germany.

Edit: Although it should be 46 and not 45 as I wrote.

[rkr1958]

Germany had a post with 45 added, and anther post with 45 subtracted, so I expected the total to be zero. Instead the total was a negative 45, and I wondered why it was a -45 for Germany.

Edit: Although it should be 46 and not 45 as I wrote.

That was a bad convention I was using. I was showing a gain as a negative loss. I've make a major update to my economic tracker and will be posting them shortly. It shows gains and losses separately as well as BP trades. Hopefully it'll be more clear. But you guys are really the judge of that so let me know.

Turn 1. Sep/Oct 1939. Economic Summary (AAR Template Rev 8).

99-1-Economics-rev8.png (97.08 KiB) Viewed 521 times

Turn 1. Nov/Dec 1939. Economic Summary (AAR Template Rev 8).

99-2-Economics-rev8.png (93.96 KiB) Viewed 521 times

Turn 1. Jan/Feb 1940. Economic Summary (AAR Template Rev 8).

99-3-Economics-rev8.png (93.86 KiB) Viewed 521 times

[rkr1958]

With this new template I'm also tracking Strategic bombing PP losses, Oil produced & net oil traded. I've also included the basis for BP gains when applicable in the corresponding production summary. In the Economic Summary part the Px for multiple MPs (i.e., Euro Axis, Western Allies, Axis, Allies) is a weighted average Px. Specifically, Px = BPP/(FP-SBL+FIF).

[rkr1958]

I also went back redefined and cleaned up my BPC (BP consumed) log entries. I'm now calling them BPR (BP Report) log entries. BPR entries are (should be) less confusing than BPC entries were.

[rkr1958]

1. Modified HR-21, "Active & Hostile Vichy" once again. Not meant to be anywhere bullet proof from rule lawyers but (hopefully) more clear behind the intent. Add HR-22, "Territorials (Production)" The HR was pulled directly from WIF CE.

999-HR-21-22.png (36.69 KiB) Viewed 497 times

2. I added two more CW WAR directives, both of which were garrison requirements. Add to a previous directive the CW has 3 open garrison war directives (12, 13 & 14).

999-CW-WAR.png (106.72 KiB) Viewed 497 times

3. 3 of 4 CW controlled counties have a chance of partisans.

999-CW-Partisan-Numbers.png (67.59 KiB) Viewed 497 times

4. It became apparent to me that CW Territorials would not only be beneficial but are absolute necessary to satisfying CW overseas garrison requirements. However; the random nature making of pulling Terrs for production has discourage me from building them specifically for the CW. That's why I really like the rule change in that regard in WIF CE. So I've decided to adopt it in my current game. So now I'll be able to produce a Terr for the countries that need them by electing to draw from Territorials from a given country during production. But if I do, it takes 2 turns instead of 1 to produce.

999-CW-Terr-FP.png (99.22 KiB) Viewed 497 times

[rkr1958]

Turn 4. Mar/Apr 1940. Weather & Actions.

[rkr1958]

Turn 4. Mar/Apr 1940. War Logs Summary.