MWiF Global War Hot-Seat (AAR)

[Taxman66]

Well on the plus side, the CW hasn't had to spend anything on replacement convoys so IMO they aren't as far behind on naval expenditures as you might think. That and there is no real need to increase the number of convoy escorts. As far as playing USE Options since the fleet is already at Pearl (presuming the US has indeed moved it there by now) you have a method of somewhat controlling the Tension. Admitidly less so the European Tension but the pools do count 50% towards their opposite as well. Also it's apparent the US won't need to play any of the escort options, so I'd go ahead and play the gift of DDs first. That's 10 free build points... The mouths of gift horses and all. I'd also start thinking about getting some of the CW twin engine fighters and NAV built to help contol those important costal waters. Yes the 3pt FTRs aren't as good as Spitfires, but they're generally better than the Luftwaffe's versions, particularly in the range game where they'll need/want to get to the all important 3 box. Also you'll want that force pool cleared out, or nearly so, for when the lovely bloodsucking bugs (mosquitos) become available.

[Red Prince]

This survey of ships was created in response to the suggestion that I need to find ways to get 150% (or 3:2 superiority) using the CW fleets in key areas. I don't disagree with this philosophy, but I wanted to check on the feasibility, so I'll share the results with you now:

Current Naval Units by Active European Theatre Major Power

Numbers in brackes indicate [Movement Points / Range]

Commonwealth
Carriers: 4 x CV Class-2 [5/3]
Light Carriers: 3 x CVL Class-1 [4/2]
Carrier Planes: 1 x CVP Class-2, 4 x CVP Class-1
.....7 ships, with a total of 8 Attack Factors, 11 Anti-Air Factors, 45 Defense Factors, 0 Shore Bombardment Factors (Averages of 1.1 / 1.6 / 6.4 / 0)

Battleships: 10 [4/4], 2 [4/3], 2 [5/3], 1 [5/2]
.....15 ships, with a total of 90 Attack Factors, 25 Anti-Air Factors, 50 Defense Factors, 37 Shore Bombardment Factors (Averages of 6 / 1.7 / 3.3 / 2.5)

Heavy Cruisers (NED): 2 [5/2], 1 [6/5]
Heavy Cruisers (SPA): 3 [6/4], 1 [6/5]
Heavy Cruisers (CW): 14 [6/6], 7 [5/5], 1 [6/4], 2 [5/4], 1 [4/3], 3 [3/2], 1 [3/1]
.....36 ships, with a total of 80 Attack Factors, 42 Anti-Air Factors, 234 Defense Factors, 26 Shore Bombardment Factors (Averages of 2.2 / 1.2 / 6.5 / 0.7)

Light Cruisers (NED): 1 [6/3]
Light Cruisers (CW): 5 [6/5], 5 [6/3], 14 [5/2], 1 [4/2], 1 [3/2]
.....27 ships, with a total of 40 Attack Factors, 17 Anti-Air Factors, 209 Defense Factors, 9 Shore Bombardment Factors (Averages of 1.5 / 0.6 / 7.7 / 0.3)

Submarines (NED): 1 [5/2]
Submarines (CW): 1 [4/4], 1 [4/2]
.....3 ships, with a total of 8 Attack Factors, 0 Anti-Air Factors, 23 Defense Factors, 0 Shore Bombardment Factors (Averages of 2.7 / 0 / 7.7 / 0)

Transports (SPA): 1 [3/3]
Transports (CW): 1 [4/4], 1 [4/3]
Liners (CW: 1 [6/5]
.....4 ships, with a total of 0 Attack Factors, 4 Anti-Air Factors, 20 Defense Factors, 0 Shore Bombardment Factors (Averages of 0 / 1 / 5 / 0)

Total Commonwealth On-Map Fleet
92 ships, with a total of 226 Attack Factors, 99 Anti-Air Factors, 581 Defense Factors, 72 Shore Bombardment Factors (Averages of 2.46 / 1.08 / 6.32 / 0.78)

French
Carriers: 1 x CV Class-2 [4/3]
Carrier Planes: 1 x CVP Class 2
.....1 ship, with a total of 1 Attack Factor, 1 Anti-Air Factor, 7 Defense Factors, 0 Shore Bombardment Factors

Battleships: 2 [4/2]
.....2 ships, with a total of 10 Attack Factors, 0 Anti-Air Factors, 10 Defense Factors, 5 Shore Bombardment Factors

Heavy Cruisers: 1 [6/2]
.....1 ship, with a total of 2 Attack Factors, 1 Anti-Air Factor, 8 Defense Factors, 1 Shore Bombardment Factor

Light Cruisers: 1 [5/3]
.....1 ship, with a total of 2 Attack Factors, 1 Anti-Air Factor, 7 Defense Factors, 1 Shore Bombardment Factor

Submarines: 1 [6/2], 1 [4/2]
.....2 ships, with a total of 4 Attack Factors, 0 Anti-Air Factors, 15 Defense Factors, 0 Shore Bombardment Factors

Transports: 1 [3/3]
.....1 ship, with a total of 0 Attack Factors, 0 Anti-Air Factors, 5 Defense Factors, 0 Shore Bombardment Factor

Total French On-Map Fleet
8 ships, with a total of 19 Attack Factors, 3 Anti-Air Factors, 52 Defense Factors, 7 Shore Bombardment Factors (Averages of 2.375 / 0.375 / 6.5 / 0.875)

Total Active Allied Fleets
100 ships, with a total of 245 Attack Factors, 102 Anti-Air Factors, 633 Defense Factors, 79 Shore Bombardment Factors

Averages per Allied Naval Unit
2.45 Attack Factors
1.02 Anti-Air Factors
6.33 Defense Factors
0.79 Shore Bombardment Factors

Germany
Battleships (FIN): 2 [4/1]
Battleships (Ge): 2 [6/3], 2 [3/2]
.....6 ships, with a total of 19 Attack Factors, 8 Anti-Air Factors, 36 Defense Factors, 10 Shore Bombardment Factors

Heavy Cruisers (RUM): 1 [6/2]
Heavy Cruisers (Ge): 3 [5/5], 1 [6/3]
.....5 ships, with a total of 16 Attack Factors, 6 Anti-Air Factors, 36 Defense Factors, 5 Shore Bombardment Factors

Light Cruisers: 4 [6/3]
.....4 ships, with a total of 8 Attack Factors, 6 Anti-Air Factors, 31 Defense Factors, 2 Shore Bombardment Factors

Submarines: 2 [5/3]
.....2 ships, with a total of 5 Attack Factors, 0 Anti-Air Factors, 15 Defense Factors, 0 Shore Bombardment Factors

Transports: 1 [4/3]
Amphibious: 1 [4/2]
.....2 ships, with a total of 0 Attack Factors, 0 Anti-Air Factors, 10 Defense Factors, 0 Shore Bombardment Factors

Total German On-Map Fleet
19 ships, with a total of 48 Attack Factors, 20 Anti-Air Factors, 128 Defense Factors, 17 Shore Bombardment Factors (Averages of 2.53 / 1.05 / 6.74 / 0.89)

Italy
Battleships: 5 [5/2]
.....5 ships, with a total of 33 Attack Factors, 6 Anti-Air Factors, 19 Defense Factors, 14 Shore Bombardment Factors

Heavy Cruisers (YUG): 1 [4/2]
Heavy Cruisers (It): 9 [6/2], 1 [4/3]
.....11 ships, with a total of 30 Attack Factors, 17 Anti-Air Factors, 57 Defense Factors, 10 Shore Bombardment Factors

Light Cruisers: 4 [6/2]
.....4 ships, with a total of 6 Attack Factors, 4 Anti-Air Factors, 36 Defense Factors, 3 Shore Bombardment Factors

Submarines: 1 [5/2], 1 [4/4], 1 [4/3], 1 [4/2]
.....4 ships, with a total of 10 Attack Factors, 0 Anti-Air Factors, 31 Defense Factors, 0 Shore Bombardment Factors

Transports: 1 [4/3], 1 [3/3]
.....2 ships, with a total of 0 Attack Factors, 1 Anti-Air Factor, 10 Defense Factors, 0 Shore Bombardment Factors

Total Italian On-Map Fleet
26 ships, with a total of 46 Attack Factors, 22 Anti-Air Factors, 134 Defense Factors, 13 Shore Bombardment Factors (Averages of 1.77 / 0.85 / 5.15 / 0.5)

Total Active Axis Fleets
45 ships, with a total of 94 Attack Factors, 42 Anti-Air Factors, 262 Defense Factors, 30 Shore Bombardment Factors

Averages per AxisNaval Unit
2.09 Attack Factors
0.93 Anti-Air Factors
5.82 Defense Factors
0.67 Shore Bombardment Factors

Current Ratio of Allied Naval Units to Axis Naval Units
Carriers (All): 8 to 0
Battleships: 17 to 11
Heavy Cruisers: 37 to 16
Light Cruisers: 28 to 8
Submarines: 5 to 6
Transports: 5 to 4

Total Fleet: 100 to 45 (or just over 2:1)

I didn't bother to count the Japanese, Soviet, or American fleets, because other than Japanese sealift, they aren't involved in the war yet.

Germany and Italy have basically 3-4 sea areas to "protect" with those 45 ships: Baltic, E. Med, W. Med, and Italian Coast

The Allies have at least 8 to protect to some degree or other (not including tryint to make attacks in the Med) with their 100 ships: North Sea, Faeroes Gap, N. Atlantic, Bay of Biscay, Cape St. Vincent, Cape Verde, Red Sea, Azanian Sea

It also wouldn't be a bad idea to maintain small fleets in the Persian Gulf and Arabian Seas (at a minimum) to maintain supply in the case of a Japanese DOW. That's a lot of territory to cover, and I don't see how easy it is to get that 150% force that is needed to make good attacks.

[Red Prince]

ORIGINAL: Taxman66

Well on the plus side, the CW hasn't had to spend anything on replacement convoys so IMO they aren't as far behind on naval expenditures as you might think. That and there is no real need to increase the number of convoy escorts.

I was actually wondering if anyone was going to pick up on that. The Axis powers have been so busy with other things that they haven't even tried to nail any convoys yet. The Italians did send a fleet of subs into a threatening position, but that's all.

Another thought occurs to me. So far, only one person has mentioned this (and I can't remember exactly when it was), but the CW has benefited from a key aspect of my pre-game planning . . .

If you look back at my initial Commonwealth convoy setup in Post #41, on Page 2 of this thread, you'll see that I arranged things so that there were no CP in the Med to be destroyed by Italy, and that forced me to rely on the fact that I (as the Allies) got "intelligence" telling me that Denmark, Belgium, and the Netherlands would all be attacked in S/O '39, before the first Production cycle began.

The reason I point this out? I don't want you to think that everything I've done in pre-game planning has favored the Axis powers. Since I knew that Italy was going to try to close the Med in the Middle-East, and that Germany might do the same on the Iberian peninsula, the CW was saved from having to spend BP and Naval moves on repositioning its convoys.

Perhaps that isn't as significant as I believe it to be, but I read in one of these threads that a player was stunned in an over-the-table game (was it Steve who said this?) when he lost the equivalent of 8 million tonnes of convoys in the first year alone. Afterwards, he looked up the actual situation in WW II and found that this was nearly the exact number of tonnes lost during the first year of the war.

Well, in this game, during the first 9 months or so, the Commonwealth has lost not a single CP at sea. It's had a few "inherited" convoys destroyed or captured by overruns, but the shipping lanes have remained open all game. How often does that happen in WiF? (Another real question, as I've never played an over-the-table game).

[brian brian]

Well Hello, Happy New Year, my head hurts, Hosannas all around for building this game and posting this stuff, etc.

I have a final suggestion: stop taking suggestions. Fielding them all with a combination of point/counter-point/excuse/circular argument/self-fulfilling prophesy just makes you upset and is detracting from the only way you will be able to improve your game play: cold hard experience of watching the results of decisions (not dice). We know you are learning and I am not looking for apologies on any mistakes, but am completely mystified when you acknowledge a mistake and then proceed to repeat it. When you disagree, you are the supreme commander. Supreme commanders shouldn't spend their time justifying themselves.

It is your game; play it and ignore us, or at least me. I had thought to kick-start some of the AI threads to feed my jones for theoretical WiF the other day, but felt it would be a bit discourteous as I would obviously be referencing this game. A dice summary won't change my view of the strategies in play, nor will a fear-colored-strength-anaylsis-chart. As I posted, I feel strategy determines results in well-designed wargames such as this one, not luck. Plow forward in this game, not back. Start by refraining from quoting this post. And by all means, make your own decisions just as you have been, in this game and the next and the next. Make this either a straight AAR, or a pure play-by-consensus trial of the game, not some frustrating hybrid.

I have never been able to sit idly by while someone claims "The Allies/Axis can do this or that in the game, and there is nothing the Axis/Allies can do about it." World in Flames is my favorite hobby, and it sure beats some of my other options for a brief diversion from 3D life. At least for a change in this discussion, no one is blaming the idiots in Australia for writing the rules so wrong they are forced to keep playing their stupid game over and over again.

My suggestions, criticisms, and commentary (including the rest of this post) were intended for your future games, other players both experienced, new, and future, as well as the people who will be participating in designing the AI scripts. I kept posting my suggestion of having the Royal Navy fight the Italians in a serious way because you declined to do so for five turns now, and I should never have been drawn into the curious proposition of setting up an absurd Allied situation again and again like I'm watching the movie Groundhog Day and I couldn't grok that you were considerably serious about that. I thought you wanted to improve your Allied play and I was trying to speak courteously as one WiF-addict to another. I'm sorry that it appears discourteous to point out the Emperor has no clothes / that dog just won't hunt / pick your cliche again, or to use some WWII style gaming smack talk in the process.

History is littered with examples of sound strategy defeating pride, and criticism wounds pride, leading game players and real military commanders to dig in their heels and suffer the results. The two most common in the game are Russia-Manchuria-1940 and Western naval builds crowding the production spiral while the Axis empires become too large to defeat on time. Time is everything in this game; a 54 turn game is just a bunch of fantasy role-playing that teaches us little, aside from how much the customer base will desire a simple, easy free-set-up option in the game that doesn't require the heavy lifting of editing the scenario files on their own. And yes, I know, that would just cost us more time. A lot of us would have paid our money a long time ago for just the maps and counters to play with on our own just as we have them as cardboard, without the computer having to enforce the rules, etc., which makes such a desire so problematic to set up, ironically.

There is a quick, cheap, flexible, simple fix for the poor quality of the British CV fleet, or at least the air component of their uniquely tough CVs: build land-based air and the requisite infantry to defend the air bases. The CW has plenty of such bases if they don't surrender them pointlessly. They also have some single and twin-engine FTRs in the CW force pool with sufficient range to begin to dominate the seas, something the Euro-Axis sorely lacks. Over time the Allied air fighting from higher boxes will attrition down the Axis naval/air forces and the Allies can begin achieving their objectives on the ground, though another timeless mistake is for the Allies to build a couple AMPHs and no more, and then complain about the rules system or the dice when a lucky Axis NAV slips through and sinks them with no replacements available for 8 turns. If the Axis tries the Med Sitzkrieg / Italian Luftwaffe goes to Russia strategy, you then have some useful forces to combat that with on the ground, whereas a whole lot of expensive, less-flexible, and still somewhat brittle UK CVs are somewhat less useful in that situation.

The war at sea is a bit more mystifying in WiF, but sound strategy is the same regardless of whether you are gaming with plasma torpedoes and phasers or sticks and stones. In the hands of the Germans, the repeated CW strategy in these games would go like this: "Well, we sent all of our MIL and GARR into Belgium, but despite attacking at 2:3 and 1:1, we just couldn't beat the French, fortune was against us. Now they are about to take the Ruhr and there was just nothing we could do. Good thing we held the Panzers in reserve while we built battleships, defended Poland from Russia and Hungary from the Partisans, cuz now we're really gonna need them." Would that make any sense? Would you call such a result bad luck, or less-than-optimal strategy?

I'll leave the CW and your game alone now with some final thoughts on the remaining Allied power to get in the action: Russia. The Russians also have to use a strategy that recognizes they are the inferior force, which they need to protect, but this must be balanced with a need to make it cost something, most importantly time, as the Axis attempt to achieve their objectives. This creates a need for an ever so intricately delicate set of operational moves on a tactical, hex-by-hex and unit-by-unit basis. This is also incredibly challenging, perhaps moreso than the challenges the CW faces on more of a purely strategic plane, though Russia's challenge is also one for the CW. The Russians have to do this without the advantage the Chinese have of excellent defensive terrain, at least until their retreat reaches the Caucasus, where they must turn and fight. There are pages of material on this in the Russian AI thread; dive in and get those pixels moving on the board, not in our argumentative minds.

In the long run, I find the early Allied strategy (put cheap units directly in the way of the Axis over and over again, whatever strategy they select) so simple and effective that amongst equal opponents, the Axis is probably the bigger challenge in World in Flames. It does take some time to learn to execute basic Allied strategy and the tactics that strategy requires, however.

One of my minor NYE resolutions is to quit commenting in this thread, while a bigger one is to finally acknowledge that I will never save enough oil as the Japanese, and I need to bite the bullet and buy the darn SYNTH plants already, err, ahh I meant acknowledge that I will never sit down at the computer and do all the Quickbooks work I should be doing when I can reach for some sort of electronic World in Flames mind candy instead, so I should thus bite that bullet and spend the money to hire an actual CPA and then have purchased for myself enough free time ... to play World in Flames again.

[Red Prince]

Fine. I won't quote your post.

I will say that you are making dubious statements without all of the facts, though I have done my best to provide you with the infomation that should demonstrate the CW troubles.

You are ignoring the fact that the CW cannot fight a navy that isn't in a sea area, and I disagree with your assessment of what a serious attack is. You even contradict yourelf, saying that I have declined to fight the Italians in a serious way for 5 turns, but refuse to recognize that the units you want me to fight with aren't available. When I do send out units that should be able to damage the enemy -- and fail to do so -- you say I am not fighting them in a serious way. We'll just have to disagree. You say strategy trumps luck. I say terrible luck trumps strategy. Different opinions, that's all. I think I'm right, and you think you're right. I can live with that.

As to making this either a pure AAR or a play-by-consensus thread, I wonder if you re-read my first few posts or not. As far as I can tell, you are the only one being frustrated by this hybrid version. I said I was going to make this a "Choose Your Own Adventure" game, with a few exceptions. So far, I've done just that. When the choice between Vichy and Conquest was near, I took suggestions far in advance, and the ultimate consensus was to go for Spain and Gibraltar.

I have asked for general advice about the naval war, but there is simply no way I can show every unit on the map, which ones are disorganized and unavailable, etc. Therefore, it's much harder for me to ask for specific advice than it is for me to ask for defensive maneuvers in France, for example.

I have no intention of making this a pure AAR game.

I hope you won't stop posting on this thread. I do value your thoughts. On only a few occassions have I tried to "justify" myself, and on some of those I've even admitted I was wrong. The other times I've simply explained why I did what I did and attempted to give information that demonstrated the contraints I was under at the time.

The only thing I'm going to say as justification at the moment is this: you don't have all the facts, and there's no way I can possibly get them to you, no matter how much I would like to do so. I'm sorry if I've upset you, but I won't apologize for doing things the way I'm doing them. It's easy to read these posts and comment on them. It takes all of half an hour at most. But if you care to look at the time stamps for each day, you'll see that it takes me several hours to create the information, images, and progress that I post here. If you want to tell me once that I've done something stupid, go ahead. If I respond with an explanation and/or analysis of why I did it, right or wrong, either find something new to say or move on. Please don't repeat that I've done something stupid.

If I post an analysis, as I did today (which took several hours to create), and you simply ignore it and restate your firm belief that good strategy should overcome anything that might happen in the game, why should I believe you? Where are your facts? I'm not talking real history, I'm talking WiF and MWiF. I have tried my best to address your arguments with as many facts from the game as I can. Yet you choose to see it as an inexperienced player going on the defensive. I may not be an expert player, but I consider myself a near-expert beta-tester of MWiF, and you have to remember that this is my primary goal -- to test the game. And, for this AAR, to show you the results of that testing, explaining as much of it as I have time for.

[composer99]

Let's break down the ratios a bit:

Allied CV vs Axis - 5:0
Allied CVL vs Axis - 3:0

Allied BB vs Axis - 17:11 (keeping in mind 4 of the Axis BBs are garbage)

Allied CA vs Axis - 37:16 (keeping in mind a number of Allied CA are garbage)
Allied CL vs Axis - 28:8

Allied SUB vs Axis - 5:6

We won't consider sealift for these purposes.

The Western Allies rarely need a lot of SUB vs the Axis since submarines can't get into the Baltic under most circumstances and the Allied operational fleets tend to be in the Med to sink convoys.

Despite the 3-to-1 advantage the Axis has enjoyed in naval losses, I think the situation looks reasonable for the Allies, although they might run low of CA/CL to do ASW duty defending convoys.

In particular, the light carriers can be equipped with Gladiators as reserve fighters, the heavy carriers can be equipped with naval-bombing CVPs, and the CW can build its long-range FTR3. These, when deployed to high boxes, can deter Axis naval deployments, chase away or sink convoy lines, and force the Axis to fight at a disadvantage from low boxes if they want to maintain air cover. It will take some time but this combination will wear down the Axis forces, especially if the CVP contingents improve over time or (more likely and probably a better build) the long-range NAV come out as well (and of course the Americans come in).

Let's assume for the sake of argument that the Axis will take Egypt & Gibraltar. The CW will want to have three forces: an 'East' force based out of Aden to contest the Red Sea, a 'West' force, based in Dakar most likely, to bottle the Axis up in Cape St Vincent, and a 'Home Fleet' to either shadow the German surface fleet or project power into the Bay of Biscay or North Sea (depending on where the German surface fleet is based). Until Gibraltar falls the fleet can base there and fight in the W. Med until it is no longer feasible to do so.

What makes land-based or carrier air so key is that, so long as the CW is based in a high box (3 or 4) it nullifies decent Axis search results if they want to fight a surface combat, especially if they base low (1 or 2 box) in order to stay under a protective air umbrella.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

Aaron,

Looking at your numbers of naval units on the map, I would focus on the CW + France versus Italy. The German fleet can't get into the Med so they can't help the Italians. Strangely enough, in one sense the CW has interior lines and can choose whom to attack. Now unless the Germans venture forth, they are impregnable. But the Italians have things that they want to do and cannot really just sit in port turn after turn. Their best asset in the naval conflict is their control of the air.

Just counting surface factors (BB, CA, and CL) the Commonwealth has 78 ships versus the Italian 20. 224 attack factors versus 69. Even allowing for peeling some away to offset a potential foray by the Germans, the Commonwealth should be able to assemble 2:1 odds. I would go for 3:1 odds in attack factors myself, and let the 3 subs deal with the Germans if they enter the North Sea. The goal is to put so much naval power into a Med sea area that AA can do serious damage to the Italian air force, and if there is a surface combat the Italians will be sweating bullets and praying to every god they can name.

[Red Prince]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Aaron,

Looking at your numbers of naval units on the map, I would focus on the CW + France versus Italy. The German fleet can't get into the Med so they can't help the Italians. Strangely enough, in one sense the CW has interior lines and can choose whom to attack. Now unless the Germans venture forth, they are impregnable. But the Italians have things that they want to do and cannot really just sit in port turn after turn. Their best asset in the naval conflict is their control of the air.

Just counting surface factors (BB, CA, and CL) the Commonwealth has 78 ships versus the Italian 20. 224 attack factors versus 69. Even allowing for peeling some away to offset a potential foray by the Germans, the Commonwealth should be able to assemble 2:1 odds. I would go for 3:1 odds in attack factors myself, and let the 3 subs deal with the Germans if they enter the North Sea. The goal is to put so much naval power into a Med sea area that AA can do serious damage to the Italian air force, and if there is a surface combat the Italians will be sweating bullets and praying to every god they can name.

I can try that, and now that the Bay of Biscay BB fleet failed to defend Blibao against the German attack, I can RTB those ships to Gibraltar at the end of the turn. Also, the CVs can reach Gibraltar at the end of this turne, too (finally). Part of the problems I've been having have a lot to do with getting the right fleet elements to the right place. Oddly enough, the fall of Spain may aid the CW Naval effort by eliminating a distraction, and allowing a concentration of forces in the range you suggest.

[composer99]

As long as Gibraltar holds, the Axis has to use sealift to ferry troops to North Africa (Morocco). As long as sufficient Allied seapower prowls the W. Med, they won't be able to do so, leaving the Atlantic sea lanes to the CW to bring their own forces in theatre.

[paulderynck]

One thing WiF demonstrates is that by WWII the age of the BB is over. It's all about air power. If the axis wants to go for Gibraltar they should be able to put enough air power into the West Med to make it an embarrassment for the CW to even contemplate going in there. The key thing is they have to build from their force pool with that in mind, beginning in SO39. In turn, that should dictate what the CW builds. The 4-8 and 5-7 lend lease FTRs don't go to China - they go to the CW. The two red 5-8s get built asap. Get the NAV3s out as well. If you can't get them into the 3-box with the fleet then it's suicide to go into the W. Med (or it ought to be if indeed the axis wants Gib).

[Red Prince]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

One thing WiF demonstrates is that by WWII the age of the BB is over. It's all about air power. If the axis wants to go for Gibraltar they should be able to put enough air power into the West Med to make it an embarrassment for the CW to even contemplate going in there. The key thing is they have to build from their force pool with that in mind, beginning in SO39. In turn, that should dictate what the CW builds. The 4-8 and 5-7 lend lease FTRs don't go to China - they go to the CW. The two red 5-8s get built asap. Get the NAV3s out as well. If you can't get them into the 3-box with the fleet then it's suicide to go into the W. Med (or it ought to be if indeed the axis wants Gib).

As of the current impulse, the EuroAxis has 2 x NAV that can be used in the Med. Next turn that will be either 3 or 4 (can't remember of the top of my head), and by S/O '40, I think I can have 5 Axis NAV threatening the CW fleet.

I've been having trouble with the CW in that regard, though. I've got few very short range NAV in the Reserve Pool that need pilots. I need to build more pilots, more NAV, more long-range FTR, more useful CVP, more land units . . . and it starts to get expensive trying to to all of that. Trying to balance my CW builds so that my units arriving and gearing limits are all correct has been a nightmare, and while I am doing better this game than in the last, I certainly haven't gotten the hang of it yet.

That reminds me of something I am going to quote despite my promiese not to do so:

ORIGINAL: brian brian

that I will never save enough oil as the Japanese, and I need to bite the bullet and buy the darn SYNTH plants already,

This is actually the first game I've played that hasn't seen me build both the Japanese and Italian SynthOil plants sometime in the first 3 turns. I like to have them available before 1941 rolls around, but they are so expensive and I've always seemed to have other things I needed immediately. This may, in part, account for my more successful Axis play in this game. I don't know. If I have the chance -- meaning, if I don't urgently need something else -- I want to try to get them built this turn. I probably should have built the Japanese one last turn instead of the ARM and something else they built.

[composer99]

The Japanese can always set aside 2-3 bp a turn for the first few turns so that the impact on their gearing limits is less.

[Centuur]

ORIGINAL: composer99

The Japanese can always set aside 2-3 bp a turn for the first few turns so that the impact on their gearing limits is less.

That depends on your building strategy. I usually put the German and Japanese SYNTH on the production spiral in winter 1939-1940 in the game, together with cheap ships, MIL's and CVP's. This than means the gearing limits won't get hurt that much. You need cheap INF units to take as spare losses and buying those in stead of the more expensive ships, MOT or FTR/LND/NAV 3 doesn't hurt you that much in one production phase.

[Centuur]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

One thing WiF demonstrates is that by WWII the age of the BB is over. It's all about air power. If the axis wants to go for Gibraltar they should be able to put enough air power into the West Med to make it an embarrassment for the CW to even contemplate going in there. The key thing is they have to build from their force pool with that in mind, beginning in SO39. In turn, that should dictate what the CW builds. The 4-8 and 5-7 lend lease FTRs don't go to China - they go to the CW. The two red 5-8s get built asap. Get the NAV3s out as well. If you can't get them into the 3-box with the fleet then it's suicide to go into the W. Med (or it ought to be if indeed the axis wants Gib).

I agree. CW should build HQ's, cheap land units, Pilots, FTR 3, NAV and CP (I like having spare ones available at all times, since the SUB war can become pretty nasty when France is gone) early on. Together with the CV in the production pool and the repairing of ships in the repair pool, that are the priorities for the first year (and probably also the next year). Apart from that, I also would start building one AMPH (but only one, more is too expensive), since I like to be aggressive (it gives invasion capabilities) and I want German/Italian units to stay at key area's on the European coast after the fall of France, in stead of all leaving for the USSR.
I've come to the conclusion that the CW can better have some cheap INF type land units too much in the game, than too little. Same with convoy points and the aircraft capable of gaining air superiority at sea. Even with lousy tactical factors: when the Euroaxis are going for a Barbarossa: they will come in handy in the game later. Let the USA build the heavy stuff for later war in the first couple of years.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Centuur

ORIGINAL: composer99

The Japanese can always set aside 2-3 bp a turn for the first few turns so that the impact on their gearing limits is less.

That depends on your building strategy. I usually put the German and Japanese SYNTH on the production spiral in winter 1939-1940 in the game, together with cheap ships, MIL's and CVP's. This than means the gearing limits won't get hurt that much. You need cheap INF units to take as spare losses and buying those in stead of the more expensive ships, MOT or FTR/LND/NAV 3 doesn't hurt you that much in one production phase.

Yes. The ROI on the Synth increases the sooner you build it.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Red Prince

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

One thing WiF demonstrates is that by WWII the age of the BB is over. It's all about air power. If the axis wants to go for Gibraltar they should be able to put enough air power into the West Med to make it an embarrassment for the CW to even contemplate going in there. The key thing is they have to build from their force pool with that in mind, beginning in SO39. In turn, that should dictate what the CW builds. The 4-8 and 5-7 lend lease FTRs don't go to China - they go to the CW. The two red 5-8s get built asap. Get the NAV3s out as well. If you can't get them into the 3-box with the fleet then it's suicide to go into the W. Med (or it ought to be if indeed the axis wants Gib).

As of the current impulse, the EuroAxis has 2 x NAV that can be used in the Med. Next turn that will be either 3 or 4 (can't remember of the top of my head), and by S/O '40, I think I can have 5 Axis NAV threatening the CW fleet.

I've been having trouble with the CW in that regard, though. I've got few very short range NAV in the Reserve Pool that need pilots. I need to build more pilots, more NAV, more long-range FTR, more useful CVP, more land units . . . and it starts to get expensive trying to to all of that. Trying to balance my CW builds so that my units arriving and gearing limits are all correct has been a nightmare, and while I am doing better this game than in the last, I certainly haven't gotten the hang of it yet.

That reminds me of something I am going to quote despite my promiese not to do so:

ORIGINAL: brian brian

that I will never save enough oil as the Japanese, and I need to bite the bullet and buy the darn SYNTH plants already,

This is actually the first game I've played that hasn't seen me build both the Japanese and Italian SynthOil plants sometime in the first 3 turns. I like to have them available before 1941 rolls around, but they are so expensive and I've always seemed to have other things I needed immediately. This may, in part, account for my more successful Axis play in this game. I don't know. If I have the chance -- meaning, if I don't urgently need something else -- I want to try to get them built this turn. I probably should have built the Japanese one last turn instead of the ARM and something else they built.

Every person who has ever played WIF has had those same nightmares. Welcome to the club.[:D] You might want to read (reread?) section 3.4 of the Players Manual. Patrice (and others) provide some very sage advice about how to avoid these nightmares.

[Red Prince]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: Red Prince

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

One thing WiF demonstrates is that by WWII the age of the BB is over. It's all about air power. If the axis wants to go for Gibraltar they should be able to put enough air power into the West Med to make it an embarrassment for the CW to even contemplate going in there. The key thing is they have to build from their force pool with that in mind, beginning in SO39. In turn, that should dictate what the CW builds. The 4-8 and 5-7 lend lease FTRs don't go to China - they go to the CW. The two red 5-8s get built asap. Get the NAV3s out as well. If you can't get them into the 3-box with the fleet then it's suicide to go into the W. Med (or it ought to be if indeed the axis wants Gib).

As of the current impulse, the EuroAxis has 2 x NAV that can be used in the Med. Next turn that will be either 3 or 4 (can't remember of the top of my head), and by S/O '40, I think I can have 5 Axis NAV threatening the CW fleet.

I've been having trouble with the CW in that regard, though. I've got few very short range NAV in the Reserve Pool that need pilots. I need to build more pilots, more NAV, more long-range FTR, more useful CVP, more land units . . . and it starts to get expensive trying to to all of that. Trying to balance my CW builds so that my units arriving and gearing limits are all correct has been a nightmare, and while I am doing better this game than in the last, I certainly haven't gotten the hang of it yet.

That reminds me of something I am going to quote despite my promiese not to do so:

ORIGINAL: brian brian

that I will never save enough oil as the Japanese, and I need to bite the bullet and buy the darn SYNTH plants already,

This is actually the first game I've played that hasn't seen me build both the Japanese and Italian SynthOil plants sometime in the first 3 turns. I like to have them available before 1941 rolls around, but they are so expensive and I've always seemed to have other things I needed immediately. This may, in part, account for my more successful Axis play in this game. I don't know. If I have the chance -- meaning, if I don't urgently need something else -- I want to try to get them built this turn. I probably should have built the Japanese one last turn instead of the ARM and something else they built.

Every person who has ever played WIF has had those same nightmares. Welcome to the club.[:D] You might want to read (reread?) section 3.4 of the Players Manual. Patrice (and others) provide some very sage advice about how to avoid these nightmares.

Thanks for the tip, Steve. I actually haven't gone through that part of the manual since June, I think, so I really should, shouldn't I? I will before I set any more builds in motion.

And thanks for welcoming me to this (dubious) club! [:D]

[Red Prince]

Well, I just re-read it, and the sad thing is that I've actually been attempting to follow pretty much all of those guidlines (with the exception of planning naval builds for the entire war). I think that my inexperience, particularly with the CW, is what is giving me nightmares. I do have the strategic plan set in place. I even typed it all out in a pre-game setup for my own use. The problem is that I am not certain what I should expect to need beyond the basics laid out in that section of the manual (which is basically an expansion of the RAW suggestions for the Global War Scenario, giving a few more specifics than RAW does).

Oh, well, maybe I'll get a better handle on it by the time 1942 rolls around. [:)]
-----
Edit: or by the time 2013 rolls around, whichever comes first. [;)]

[Centuur]

The point is with those building strategies, that they are on average good for Major Powers who can make choices with regards to strategy in the first couple of years of the war. Among them the USSR (to stuff or not to stuff), Germany/Italy (is it Barbarossa or Close the Med after France), the USA (who to aim at first) and the Japanese (what do I want to be on the board at the moment of DoW'ing the USA). All strategic decisions of these countries you can plan.
France and China are from start just there to delay the conquest as long as possible. So those building goals are also quite easy.

With the CW however, your aim in the early war years should be delay the Euroaxis as long as possible, without giving up a lot of ground. That means you don't have the luxury to look for a would be nice to have navy, army or airforce in two years time. The strategy there is: what do I need for a good defence, until my big green friend comes into play...
For the CW you have to be a little more flexible in your building strategy: most units you need in the first two years are those needed for a good defense of your territories (including France and the UK) and units you need to get air power at sea as soon as possible. That's it. Forget about planning a nice modern navy, a strategic or tactical airforce, the PARA or even ARM/MECH to be in place in 1942. It are the ill equipped footsoldiers, swordfish-, flyingboats, long range fighter pilots and the sailors of the merchantnavy and the fleet who are going to keep you into the game. Your shipyards will be kept busy repairing all kind of ships and building merchantmen in stead of new CV's. The factories will produce rifles in stead of tanks and the aviation industry will keep putting out those old model biplanes for the CV's and NAV's, until the Euroaxis have other things on their mind than closing the Med or doing a sealion...
That's the only CW building strategy that will make sure the CW comes out of the first two years of war alive and kicking. Now, when Barbarossa has started, than you can plan what you want to build for the late war.

[composer99]

I disagree with too light an CW army build or too passive a CW strategy.

Build it all! ARM, MECH, cheap infantry, MOT.

If you want to defend Egypt you want tanks, tanks and more tanks.

If you want to defend the UK in 1941 you want tanks, tanks, and more tanks.

If the Axis goes to attack USSR in 1941 you want landing craft to get ashore and be a pest somewhere (North Africa, France, Denmark, Sardinia, the Balkans) and make the Germans send an HQ and some real units back to push you off (leaving cheap INF behind to take the fall as required). Being a pest also means long-range bomber raids into the Baltic and strategic bombing.

A strong army build also gives the CW all those land units it needs to hold the Japanese off for a few turns.

While the CW has the disadvantage of having to build up a lot of its forces from scratch, it has one advantage in that the Axis are on the wrong side of the Royal Navy from key CW possessions and have to build up most of the forces needed to fight the CW from scratch as well - NAV, subs, long-range fighters, marines, sealift.