Matrix Games Forums

Second Half July 1942

Japan suffered another two weeks of crushing air attacks from overwhelming Allied air power. Japan's last surface ships, Hiryu, Soryu, Tone, and Nagato, were reduced to twisted metal. A maritime bomber joined the dead reducing Japan's esteemed air fleet to two heavily damaged tac bombers and a beat up strategic bomber.


I reinforced Japan's last stronghold, Korea, with another two armies. The elite 13 point behemoth hunkers down firmly entrenched in Seoul. I'm expecting Korea to provide a few extra months of survival for Japan especially if bad weather hits.

However, any offensive capability in China is now gone. Communist China fell in June and that's about it for any further advances in China.


Allied units occupy most of the Chinese coast. They're not going anywhere but they hold valuable Japanese units in defensive positions. Meanwhile Chinese and Allied units peck away in the West with small but MPP consuming attacks. The Allies have MPPs to burn while the Japanese weigh every expenditure.

Notice I built two garrison units in Nanjing. Immediately after building them I regretted the build. The Allies can easily kill a garrison, so at this point they are worthless for holding the coast or any defensive line. Basically the two are on partisan duty. A waste of 100 MPPs.

Japan's production is down to 200 MPPs and national morale dipped to 40%. Looks bleak.

The million dollar question: Will the USA crush Japan or create a second front to save Russia?

August 42


Japan was relatively quiet this turn. Notice the Allied fleet lazily sails through sunny quiet waters. A couple transports take a sightseeing tour of the East China Sea. Dang, where's my subs!

Hiroshima is holding firm, mostly because the attacking Allied units are in low supply. Actually zero supply for the USA corps next to Hiroshima. I used the lull to reinforce the Kyoto army from 4 point to full strength.

Now I look back on my position and wonder, what was I thinking? Two critical armies in Japan are not upgraded and one of the armies was at 4 point strength for who knows how long. I was so focused on buying anti-air units that I neglected maintenance on existing units.

New Player Advice
The basic rule of WaW is always upgrade your units and always bring units up to full strength. If you don't have the MPPs, find them. Don't be like Hitler and buy shiny new units while your units on the front wither away.

A partial strength unit is subject to several disadvantages. The obvious one is that they can be more easily killed. Second is that they operate at reduced morale and reduced combat effectiveness and that's in addition to being at weaker strength. A double whammy. Also, a damaged unit brought back up to full strength requires a couple turns to recover morale and effectiveness.

Sometimes you have to decide which to do first, upgrade or reinforce. I usually reinforce first because an upgraded unit costs more MPPs to reinforce. However you can reinforce when adjacent to a enemy unit but not upgrade. So if your unit is close to the front, you may need to grab the opportunity to upgrade while your unit is not adjacent to any enemies.

August 1942


Panzers streamed past Kuybyshev striking for Ufa. Kuybyshev is just a bump in the road in the race for Perm. Winter is coming. If this Fall/Winter is like the last, I may have only one more turn of good weather.

Notice that Kuybyshev has been cut off from HQ command. Important for reducing combat effectiveness.

I'm less concerned with Russian tanks, more concerned with Russian anti-tank units. I'm sure they'll show up in the hills above Ufa. But maybe not.

Artillery units arrived in range of the Volga fortifications. However, I plan to capture Kuybyshev first and then take the fortifications when they are at zero supply. If I can capture Kuybyshev and Orenburg at 3 or 4 supply, I'll have rail/supply right up to Ufa.

My other objective is Izhevsk. Two tanks are in the north near Kazan but they're just a diversion. I'm hoping Dmitry sees the tanks as a threat to Perm and positions a couple anti-tank units north of Perm. That would leave Ufa/Chelyabinsk open to my main armored thrust.

A couple armies and two/three corps will move into the rough terrain near Izhevsk. They will pound on the Perm fortifications from the northwest.

My main attack on Perm will be from the south with armor/mechanized through Chelyabinsk, then Sverdlovsk. Maybe if I'm lucky infantry can threaten Perm from the hills south of the city.

Destroyed three Russian corps this turn. Not great. However, Russian land unit count dropped to 22 this month from 23 last month. So Russia is not producing a lot of units.

September 1942


Arrggh, another early fall/winter. Well...got to make the best of it.

Captured Kuybyshev and Orenburg while destroying three corps. I've collected four German HQs for the Perm assault. Set up a para north of Kuybyshev just in case an opportunity presents itself.

An anti-tank showed up in Ufa as I feared. Notice that I've shielded my tanks from the Russian anti-tank with my own anti-tank.

I attempted to destroy the Russian corps defending Izhevsk but no dice. Without mud I would have killed that Russian HQ in the northeast but it was just out of reach.

I'm certain that fortification hex containing the engineer south of Perm was finished last turn. And he left the engineer in the fortification. Either Dmitry is finished building fortifications or Russia is hurting for units. I suspect, hurting for units because fortifications would be valuable to the south and southeast of Perm.

Great AAR LoneRunner! I am sure we are all enjoying it very much.
How many US land troops does the USA have? Did he invest on Heavy Strat bombers? is he bombarding heavily the Reich mines? How many U-Boote do you have have left and are they hitting effectively the USA/Canada-UK convoys?

Thank you Taifun. And I appreciate the reminder. I don't talk about the sea war enough because the news is usually too sad . Dmitry is very good at sea warfare and I got my butt kicked everytime I lost sight of land.

Here's a summary of the 42 Atlantic battle:


After winning the Battle of the Murmansk Convoy, the German fleet sailed for the Atlantic hoping to pick off a few more UK destroyers and cut USA/Canada convoys. Things quickly went bad. The Tirpitz was sunk by a couple subs and a maritime bomber based in Iceland.

I pulled my remaining surface ships out of range and plowed onward with five subs headed for the North Atlantic convoy lines.

Maritime bombers based in both Iceland and England pasted the subs while several USA and UK destroyers spotted and attacked remnants. After four months, one sub was sunk and the rest heavily damaged. Maybe 5 convoy MPPs were sunk. Allied destroyers stayed well within maritime bomber range so the Bismarck never got hold of one of the buggers.

In July the German fleet retreated to the Baltic Sea never to return.

One Italian and two German subs continued to raid the South Atlantic. And they did well knocking off convoys from Iraq, South Africa, and India. The USA/Canada convoy line was heavily guarded with escort carriers and destroyers and my subs stayed away from that area until late 43 when the lure of transports became too great.

The Allies attempted no strategic bombing through the end of 1942. And even through 1943 bombing was sporadic. Dmitry appeared to place little emphasis in that area. Be interesting to hear his thoughts on that subject.

Here's the unit report for September 1942:


USA land units increased significantly in the past six months, going from 11 in March to 21 in September. Enough units for one real invasion, Japan or Europe.

Interesting that USA air units have barely increased, from four in March to five in September. UK air decreased from 12 in March to nine in September. So, definitely not a focus on air for the Allies.

Excellent AAR Bill - well done. It brings back painful memories.

Still waiting to hear of a fix to this Allied Strategy other than just agreeing up front to exclude it.

petedalby wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 4:01 pm Excellent AAR Bill - well done. It brings back painful memories.

Still waiting to hear of a fix to this Allied Strategy other than just agreeing up front to exclude it.

Thanks Pete. Good to hear from you. I was getting concerned that I hadn't seen you in the forum lately. PM still doesn't seem to work and there's a lot of Dalbys in England. About 8 million hits on Google, heh.

Wish I could have done an AAR of our game. It was as exciting as this one. But, I didn't save enough screenshots, early enough. Yes, painful is right. Especially since I'm on the other side of the stick .

Odd that the developers haven't fixed the problem. I hate to see them exclude the Japan first strategy. Just three adjustments should be enough:
1. Don't allow reinforcements to be blocked.
2. Increase the mobilization hit on USA for an early UK DoW on Japan.
3. Reduce UK national morale for an early DoW on Japan.

October 1942


Mud and rain settle over the Perm Front.

Dmitry launched a sharp counterattack on the north side of the front, killing a panzer, using two anti-tanks and armored train. Level 2 anti-tank guns are death to tanks. My panzer was almost full strength in rough terrain, however in low supply, ouch. Well...I wanted Dmitry to position two anti-tank guns north of Perm and I got it, but I didn't expect to lose a tank. The good news is that I killed one of the anti-tanks in my turn.

Low supply, bad terrain, and mud are reducing the Axis advance to a crawl. I killed the defender of Izhevsk but was unable to move into the hex. Units barely inched up to the Perm fortifications. Hate to force march armies to the front but may have to resort to that. So Dmitry is defending with engineer units. Upgraded engineer units can be tough but I'd rather be building more fortifications. He must be running out of units.

Too bad my para unit is in the rain. I would have dropped him next to Perm.

Attacked Ufa but was unable to even kill the defending corps. However, I destroyed a pesky anti-tank unit near Ufa. That allowed my tanks to advance on Magnitogorsk. The tanks won't get far because of the bad terrain, but I'm forcing the Russians to defend more front, spreading their already thin line. Dmitry's last anti-tank gun should be stuck in bad terrain north of Perm for a while. At least that's the plan.

Destroyed an army, two anti-tank guns, and two corps during October. Not bad for bad weather. The Russians are down to 19 land units. Russian production is down to 460 MPPs a month, including 160 MPPs from USA.

Russian national morale crashed to 47% in October. That's huge. National morale under 75% causes units to lose 10% morale per turn. When national morale drops below 40%, the loss will be 15% per turn.

New Player Advice:
Here's an example: Let's say a unit starts at 70% morale. 5 turns of 15% losses could bring that unit's morale down to 31%. The formula for unit morale is more complicated than that and factors in old morale, unit strength and supply but low national morale has a significant cumulative effect.

Unit morale is important because it affects unit effectiveness. Units with low morale will not attack effectively, will incur more casualties in battle, and will retreat more often. And low national morale affects all units, land, sea, and air. In the long run, low national morale will destroy a nation's ability to wage war effectively. I expect Russian units will begin showing the effects of this cumulative morale loss in the next few months.

More New Player Advice
Notice the north/south weather line midway between Kuybyshev and Orenburg. Rain/mud on the west side of the weather line and mud on the east side. That happens a lot. The Axis player should fit as much of their air force as they can to the east side of that weather line. That way it doesn't have to be clear weather on both sides of the line for you to fly air missions.

I've moved my planes into any open space that I think can't be attacked by a Russian unit.

Caucasus Front


The Caucasus Front is at a stalemate. With the forces available I've backed the Russians into Grozny but without reinforcements, that's about as far as I'm gonna go.

Oh, for you new players, don't place your mech unit in the marsh like I did, sheesh.

Not reinforcing the Caucasus was a huge mistake. I had units available. I should have pounded through the Russian line. You'll see what happened a few months later.

Are you sure this is how the NM penalty on units works?
Manual:
If National Morale < 40% then Unit Morale is multiplied by 0.85.
If National Morale < 75% then Unit Morale is multiplied by 0.90.
If National Morale < 95% then Unit Morale is multiplied by 0.95.
If National Morale > 110% then Unit Morale is multiplied by 1.10.

Does that really mean a continuous drain? I thought it just drags your units morale to a lower point of equilibrium,
like e.g. 70% NM, unit would normaly have 80% morale but now has 72%. I am aware that last turns morale affects this turns morale calculation, but I have never seen a countrie's units morale countinuously drain down to 0 once their NM falls below 95%. Maybe I'm missunderstanding something here...

Bavre wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 8:22 pm Are you sure this is how the NM penalty on units works?
Manual:
If National Morale < 40% then Unit Morale is multiplied by 0.85.
If National Morale < 75% then Unit Morale is multiplied by 0.90.
If National Morale < 95% then Unit Morale is multiplied by 0.95.
If National Morale > 110% then Unit Morale is multiplied by 1.10.

Does that really mean a continuous drain? I thought it just drags your units morale to a lower point of equilibrium,
like e.g. 70% NM, unit would normaly have 80% morale but now has 72%. I am aware that last turns morale affects this turns morale calculation, but I have never seen a countrie's units morale countinuously drain down to 0 once their NM falls below 95%. Maybe I'm missunderstanding something here...

That's how I understand it too. I didn't notice such an impactful drain too, but maybe high enough supply negates the effect?
Of course low NM is harmful, no question about this. But I suppose (I could be wrong for 2,5 years though ) low NM hurts so much because not only your morale is lower, but also your opponents is higher. If Axis gets 10% boost, and you -15% penalty, then yeah.

Great AAR BTW LoneRunner, very insightful. Looking forward for fix too.

Marcinos1985 wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 9:08 pm

Bavre wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 8:22 pm Are you sure this is how the NM penalty on units works?
Manual:
If National Morale < 40% then Unit Morale is multiplied by 0.85.
If National Morale < 75% then Unit Morale is multiplied by 0.90.
If National Morale < 95% then Unit Morale is multiplied by 0.95.
If National Morale > 110% then Unit Morale is multiplied by 1.10.

Does that really mean a continuous drain? I thought it just drags your units morale to a lower point of equilibrium,
like e.g. 70% NM, unit would normaly have 80% morale but now has 72%. I am aware that last turns morale affects this turns morale calculation, but I have never seen a countrie's units morale countinuously drain down to 0 once their NM falls below 95%. Maybe I'm missunderstanding something here...

That's how I understand it too. I didn't notice such an impactful drain too, but maybe high enough supply negates the effect?
Of course low NM is harmful, no question about this. But I suppose (I could be wrong for 2,5 years though ) low NM hurts so much because not only your morale is lower, but also your opponents is higher. If Axis gets 10% boost, and you -15% penalty, then yeah.

Great AAR BTW LoneRunner, very insightful. Looking forward for fix too.

Thank you for your questions Bavre and Marcinos. Yes, calculation of unit morale and the effects of unit morale are pretty vague. I've picked up information from the manual and forums but still have a lot of holes in my understanding.

First: When applying a percentage penalty each turn, you will never reach zero morale. That's because the impact of the penalty gets smaller as unit morale decreases. Here's an example:

Let's say unit morale is 70 and the low morale penalty is 15%. Ending morale would be 70 * .85 = 59.5 (a 10.5 reduction in morale).

If unit morale is 40 ending morale would be 40 * .85 = 34 ( a 6 reduction in morale).

If unit morale is 10 ending morale would be 10 * .85 = 8.5 ( a 1.5 reduction in morale).

Notice that as unit morale decreases, the penalty gets smaller. When unit morale gets near zero, the penalty would be almost zero. So when applying a percentage penalty, even if the penalty is cumulative, it will never get to zero.

Second: On a recent posting thread in our Matrix forum (National Morale Questions), I asked some similar questions to those you mentioned. Here's the link to the thread: https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 6&t=382617

In answer to my question asking if the national morale penalties were applied every turn, here's how Bill answered:

"As to the effect on unit morale, it does apply every turn but it is an adjustment to what their morale would have been, i.e. every turn morale is recalculated and then the NM is taken into account, so the degree to which the unit's morale is affected is limited."

So, the national morale penalty is applied every turn but the impact is not as simple as my example. According to Bill morale is first calculated and then the penalty is applied. However, the penalty is cumulative because of how morale is calculated. Here's the formula for morale:

Manual 7.29: New Morale = Old Morale x 75% + (Strength x 10 - Old Morale x 75%) x (Supply/10 x Old Morale/100)

Third (Let's try calculating morale):
Whew, I bet you wished you hadn't asked, heh. But to make things simple, let's assume the unit is full strength and is at 10 supply. Assuming those situations will eliminate the effect of strength and supply. Let's try the calculation using the original unit at 70% morale.

New morale = (70 x .75 )+ (10 x 10 - 70 x .75) x (10/10 x 70/100)
= (52.5) + (100 - 52.5) x .70
= (52.5) + (47.5) x .70
= (52.5) + 33.25
= 85.75

Wow, the unit's morale increased from 70 to 85.75. The calculation makes sense because morale should improve for a full strength unit in full supply. But then the low national morale penalty is applied on the new morale.

Ending morale = new morale x .85
= 85.75 x .85
= 72.9

The low national morale penalty doesn't actually reduce the morale of a full strength fully supplied unit, but it does keep the unit from gaining morale when it is full strength and fully supplied. Which is critical, because how many of your units are full strength and fully supplied. For me, maybe 20%. In Russia, zero.

Let's try the formula on a full strength unit at 5 supply.

New morale = (70 x .75) + (10 x 10 - 70 x .75 ) x (5 / 10 x 70 / 100)
= (52.5) + (100 - 52.5) x .35
= (52.5) + (47.5) x .35
= (52.5) + 16.625
= 69.125

So a unit in low supply maintains about the same morale, however then the low national morale penalty is applied on the new morale.

Ending morale = new morale x .85
= 69.125 x .85
= 58.76

Ouch, unit morale drops from 70 to 58.76. But then the low national morale penalty is applied the next turn and morale drops even lower, and then lower the next turn.

The formula shows that any unit not full strength or not fully supplied will get hammered by the cumulative effect of low national morale. This is important because most units are not full strength and fully supplied.

Cool huh? Anyone there? Hello?

Okay, Bavre and Marcinos are right, most of us don't see unit morale dropping below 10 or even 20. But think about it. How many nations with national morale below 40% last more than 5 months?

I wish I had clicked on some of the Japanese units during my game and checked their morale. It would have been interesting. The Japanese were struggling with national morale below 40% for six months. What I did notice was that Japanese units were totally ineffective toward the end. I'll bet their unit morale was near zero.

Regarding Stratbombing and general strategy. I allocated all the allies resources to Japan front, leaving very limited fleet/air and no land units to north Atlantic and Germany. Ecpecially stratbombers. Last 2-3 games I have seen how costly are allies attacks on Tokyo and other Japan cities which could not been attacked with ampth transports. You can sacrifice few land units without real effect and Japan armies reinforcing each turn. Thus I decided that stratbombing of main Japanese cities is absolutely necessary for fast capture of them. Only after reducing all the cities and ports to 0-3 levels you can fast kill Japanese land units inside. It is costly but worth in terms of time. Thus all the possible allies stratbombers were around Tokyo till it was captured.

LoneRunner wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 5:34 pm
Odd that the developers haven't fixed the problem. I hate to see them exclude the Japan first strategy. Just three adjustments should be enough:
1. Don't allow reinforcements to be blocked.
2. Increase the mobilization hit on USA for an early UK DoW on Japan.
3. Reduce UK national morale for an early DoW on Japan.

I have noted various ideas to help resolve this, but I think we only heard about this strategy after we'd submitted the previous patch, so some changes will be coming in the next one.

I can't say when that will be yet, but rest assured the solutions will be along the lines of what you're suggesting.

Great AAR thread too!

BillRunacre wrote: Fri May 06, 2022 12:17 pm

LoneRunner wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 5:34 pm
Odd that the developers haven't fixed the problem. I hate to see them exclude the Japan first strategy. Just three adjustments should be enough:
1. Don't allow reinforcements to be blocked.
2. Increase the mobilization hit on USA for an early UK DoW on Japan.
3. Reduce UK national morale for an early DoW on Japan.

I have noted various ideas to help resolve this, but I think we only heard about this strategy after we'd submitted the previous patch, so some changes will be coming in the next one.

I can't say when that will be yet, but rest assured the solutions will be along the lines of what you're suggesting.

Great AAR thread too!

Thanks Bill. I appreciate your continued support for WaW.

LoneRunner wrote: Fri May 06, 2022 2:05 am
New morale = (70 x .75 )+ (10 x 10 - 70 x .75) x (10/10 x 70/100)
= (52.5) + (100 - 52.5) x .70
= (52.5) + (47.5) x .70
= (52.5) + 33.25
= 85.75

Wow, the unit's morale increased from 70 to 85.75. The calculation makes sense because morale should improve for a full strength unit in full supply. But then the low national morale penalty is applied on the new morale.

Ending morale = new morale x .85
= 85.75 x .85
= 72.9

The low national morale penalty doesn't actually reduce the morale of a full strength fully supplied unit, but it does keep the unit from gaining morale when it is full strength and fully supplied. Which is critical, because how many of your units are full strength and fully supplied. For me, maybe 20%. In Russia, zero.

Okay, just one more quick aside from the real battle.

I started thinking about National Morale last night and I realized what an amazingly elegant system Hubert and Bill developed to apply the effects of low national morale on combat units. National morale reflects a nation's will to continue the battle. Hubert and Bill built a system that recreates the steady erosion of morale and combat effectiveness on fighting units when the public loses faith in the war.

Units lose morale a number of ways: combat, retreat, bombing, force march, operational movement, etc. To maintain an effective fighting force a nation's units must be able to quickly regain morale. The penalty for low national morale doesn't create dramatic shifts in morale but it does provide the gradual deterioration of morale where units are unable to recover morale after combat or other morale impacting activity. Cool huh?

I checked the formula and the steady erosion of morale actually starts when national morale falls below 75% and unit morale is assessed a 10% penalty every turn. That 10% penalty is too much to overcome. Your units may not incur a huge shift in morale, but turn after turn unit morale and effectiveness crumble as units are unable to recover lost morale.

Wow! Excellent work Hubert and Bill.

I probably should create a new thread covering this subject because most WaW players are not following this AAR and won't get a chance to understand national morale.

Okay, had a quick dive into the math and the morale definitely does not drain away forever but is just draged down to a lower point. It's actually quite easy to see, just take any of the above scenarios with a really low old morale (like a unit that was decimated and that you just repaired). You'll see that the unit will slowly start to gain morale again, even with the 0.85 NM factor. The way this formula seems to work is that for every set of str/supply it has some kind of sweet spot. Units with morale above that sweet spot will slowly deteriorate towards it while units with morale below that spot slowly rise. The NM penalty factor just lowers that spot.
Btw it obviously has to be that way, otherwise a unit of a country with say 75% NM that is hit by a lvl 3 med bomber would basically be gone for good

I was just so stumped by the whole thing because I'm mainly a WW1 player and there this mechanic plays a MUCH more prominent role. Big countries there are almost never outright conquered and it's just a big race to get the enemies NM to 0 before yours runs out. Therefore almost all countries spend literal years under the effect of the NM penalty.

Also from a mathematical point of view I must say this is a very beautiful system. I wonder how long it took to devise that.

October 1942


Operation Downfall, the Allied plan for the invasion of the Japanese home islands, slams into action. Allied air and land units hit Japan from multiple directions. No place to hide. Japan takes heavy losses. Both HQs and two corps are destroyed. All major ports are damaged by shore bombardment. In addition, Allied ships blockade every port. No reinforcements are coming in or out.

Japan's temporary saving grace is that no cities were taken. Allied troops occupy rough terrain with zero supply so only special forces provide any further effective offensive capability. That probably won't last long.

Now I'm regretting not having upgraded that army in Kyoto and not researching anti-air. Those two new anti-air units provide some support but with zero upgrades, they are pretty weak.

I'm surprised the Allies didn't capture Niigata. That's key to taking Tokyo. An HQ sitting in Niigata would provide much needed supply and command. I'm figuring both Sendai and Niigata are next on the list.

The army in Tokyo is fully entrenched and backed up by another army in Yokohama. I'm hoping the two will hold at all costs for several turns.

Korea was mostly ignored for this round. With three armies commanded by my best HQ, Korea should put up a pretty good fight. That weak garrison in Pusan has me worried and I'll replace it pretty quick when I can get another unit free.

Notice the HQ is located far up the Korean peninsula. Dmitry is death on HQs and I'm attempting to hide it in the mountains.

November 1942


Axis forces inched forward through mud, snow, and rough terrain.

Destroyed an army, two corps, and an engineer but unable to advance into open hexes due to mud, rough terrain, and supply. I decided to change tactics and pushed my tanks forward into the front line. I don't like placing tanks like this but the weather is not going to change and it's the only way I'm going to advance on Perm. Hopefully that anti-tank will stay in the north.

My HQs need to be right behind the front line. I'm pushing them forward fast as possible but it's a slog through the mud. I reluctantly spent the MPPs and operated an HQ to Orenburg. I don't like spending MPPs like that, but I'm getting desperate.

I'm a bit alarmed because a Chinese unit appeared near Aralsk. And, yes, that's a Chinese fighter north of Chelyabinsk. Not a big deal in itself, but the early presence of Chinese forces indicates Dmitry is already shifting the Chinese army north into Russia. I don't want to be fighting a combined Russia, UK, Chinese force around Perm. So, I got to get the Axis moving despite bad weather.

I attempted to take Magnitogorsk this turn but was only able to knock the anti-air unit down to 1 strength. If I can advance through Magnitogorsk to Kurgan, I'll cut off Allied reinforcements to Perm. I think I got to do it fast, so it's all out with the panzers, no repairs.

Notice I've got two paratroopers waiting in the rear area for clear skies. I'll drop on Kurgan if the opportunity presents itself.

The Russians are down to 18 land units. Germany's land unit count increased to 105 at the end of November.

Appears like the USA is committed to eliminating Japan so I don't need to worry about a serious second front until summer. Now it's a race as to who falls first, Japan or Russia.

November 1942


Japan is again pounded from air, sea, and land. Where are the winter rains?

Niigata fell from a combined land and sea attack. Hiroshima surrendered. All northern Japan under Allied control. Offers for a truce are ignored.

Appears Tokyo/Osaka are next.