Bob Flemin's MWIF AARse

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: markb50k

Yeah I saw your other post. Would be a shame.

Although, the thought of restarting fresh and new is very tempting for those who like to improve upon mistakes we know we made. Either way, thank you for the awesome AAR up to this point. A pure joy to read. [&o]

warspite1

That's nice of you to say.

I saved the game about seven impulses back. I could try using that (and try to replicate moves as much as possible) but will only bother doing so if I can get rid of the problem aircraft, otherwise it will just crash again sooner or later anyway.

If not, then yes, I will start again.

[WarHunter]

It is a damn shame.
Those phantom planes from beyond need to be exorcised. Bring in the Legendary Samurai Jubei Yagyu, from the movie Samurai Resurrection to deal with them.


Do you have any thoughts on options to use or not use in a future AAR? I'm happy to comment on future plans. [:'(]

[brian brian]

It seems as if a lot of the AARs are using the option to place two CV planes on a Carrier, as long as the sum of their classes fits? That seems like it would be an extra layer of potential problems in computer code. I have never had any desire to use that option.

Anyhow, I hope you can continue this one. You will never experience another game like this one, attempting to command military forces embarking into a new war of new technology, giving you some of the feel of how the WWI era leaders experienced these new realities.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: brian brian

It seems as if a lot of the AARs are using the option to place two CV planes on a Carrier, as long as the sum of their classes fits? That seems like it would be an extra layer of potential problems in computer code. I have never had any desire to use that option.

Anyhow, I hope you can continue this one. You will never experience another game like this one, attempting to command military forces embarking into a new war of new technology, giving you some of the feel of how the WWI era leaders experienced these new realities.

warspite1

As far as I can see you cannot choose that is an option i.e. you choose carrier planes or not and cannot choose not to play with more than one plane. Please let me know if I have missed something.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: WarHunter

It is a damn shame.
Those phantom planes from beyond need to be exorcised. Bring in the Legendary Samurai Jubei Yagyu, from the movie Samurai Resurrection to deal with them.


Do you have any thoughts on options to use or not use in a future AAR? I'm happy to comment on future plans. [:'(]

warspite1

If I need to re-start I probably won't use limited overseas supply - that's just a pain for no apparent gain.

The big question for me is whether to use oil or not. I like the idea of its use, but with the production issues encountered I cannot be certain from turn to turn whether or not I have any! That is just not fun - and even less realistic than playing without oil in the first place..

[Klydon]

Play with no oil and ditch the D20 chart. IMO, you will have much more fun no matter what angle you are looking at. [:D]

[Courtenay]

Since my opinion is that oil is essential and I greatly prefer the 2d10 table, obviously opinions differ here.

Although my Germans don't think much of the 2d10 table, simply because they seem to be rolling only one die on it. [:)]

[WarHunter]

Given the state of the game at the moment, shaving off a few options is not a bad idea for an AAR.

Agree with your sentiments about Limited overseas supply.

Oil rule, save it for later. Plus, Synthetic oil plants don't need to be used either.

1D10 vs 2D10, There are more than a few players that like it. Why not show it in use. Be sure to use Blitz bonus option with 1D10. [&o]

The following is a subjective list of options to be considered as not essential. IMHO

Cruisers in Flames, Supply Units, Construction Engineers, Extended Game length, Chinese Attack Weakness, Food in flames, Variable Reorganization Costs, In The Presence Of The Enemy, Carpet Bombing. [>:]

Truthfully, Warspite1, whatever you're happy with, is what counts.
Just don't use the oil rule and Limited overseas supply. 100% agreed

[Klydon]

I disagree on the Chinese attack weakness for now with this new Chinese map. The Japanese have all sorts of issues in China now, even if they heavily reinforce from the start of the game. (Or so it seems to me anyway). The Japanese simply do not appear to have many options in terms of thinking about putting a push on the Russians early or making a push in the Chinese theater someplace, if only to straighten out their lines to a more unit conservative and better defensive position and that is even if the units from the home islands are sent in.

Food in Flames is a big help to the CW early, so I would not use that unless you are looking to specifically give the CW a boost.

Most of the rest of the list I agree with, although the big use of the engineers is to help crack the river lines.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: WarHunter

Given the state of the game at the moment, shaving off a few options is not a bad idea for an AAR.

Agree with your sentiments about Limited overseas supply.

Oil rule, save it for later. Plus, Synthetic oil plants don't need to be used either.

1D10 vs 2D10, There are more than a few players that like it. Why not show it in use. Be sure to use Blitz bonus option with 1D10. [&o]

The following is a subjective list of options to be considered as not essential. IMHO

Cruisers in Flames, Supply Units, Construction Engineers, Extended Game length, Chinese Attack Weakness, Food in flames, Variable Reorganization Costs, In The Presence Of The Enemy, Carpet Bombing. [>:]

Truthfully, Warspite1, whatever you're happy with, is what counts.
Just don't use the oil rule and Limited overseas supply. 100% agreed

warspite1

WHAT!!!!!! WarHunter, I normally value your sage advice, but that comment is worrying - are you ill?? [;)] I am NOT playing without the likes of Penelope, Arethusa, Ajax or Coventry! No sir, never!!

[brian brian]

Well, I can understand your frustrations so far. Two things to consider:

If the production bugs make the oil rule this difficult, the easy fix is to play without it. In that case, you might want to add the Food in Flames option, so at least the CW gets a few extra production points each turn. Though it appears bugs could impact that one some too, unfortunately. An essential problem with turning all oil into Build Points is that only the Axis get extra BPs, for the most part. The Axis countries are resource limited far more than the Allies, who can maximize their production, use their oil units frequently, and still save up some oil, through large portions of the game. Also without the ability to store oil and use it in their factories later, the Russians are in a bit of a tighter spot as well, in a strong Axis 1941 Barbarossa situation. Food in Flames would help only some, as the Axis will be a lot, lot stronger. In a solitaire, no-oil game, I would consider anti-CW strategies as the Germans a bit more. Without an oil rule, an experienced Axis player could quite easily crush the Russians; even a very, very good Russian player. I think.

I have played with the Limited Overseas Supply option for a long long time. I like it because it makes the players fight to control the sea. Sure, without it you have to fight at sea as well, but being forced to protect supply shipping makes for a far more interesting game in the sea zones, in my opinion. A lot of people that play this game think the sea zones are just there to figure out where the tanks are going to land however. I'm not sure how the Italy/German sea supply issues are working out however, so that might be a no-go in a Mediterranean game.

Perhaps some people don't like it because it seems you have to use Convoy Points in the 0 box for that supply. A trick to consider when the action gets heavy at sea is to use your transports to keep supply open, robustly escorted with a single strong task force in the 3 box.... a risk for your precious transport, yes.

For the choice of combat tables, I suggest some run throughs of the Barbarossa scenario. Which frees the players from lots of the last few bugs crawling around in the game. Just ignore the ships completely (no port strikes), and get into the nuts and bolts of corps-level WWII combined arms combat, rather than figuring out which menu that one part of the game is run from.

Anyhow, thanks as usual for all you bring us, especially those of us who know they can't quite purchase yet, or else nothing whatsoever would be accomplished at a very busy time of year... wrapping up a major work project tomorrow I think .... hmmmm .....

[WarHunter]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

The following is a subjective list of options to be considered as essential. IMHO
Cruisers in Flames,
Truthfully, Warspite1, whatever you're happy with, is what counts.

warspite1

WHAT!!!!!! WarHunter, I normally value your sage advice, but that comment is worrying - are you ill?? [;)] I am NOT playing without the likes of Penelope, Arethusa, Ajax or Coventry! No sir, never!!

I fixed that quote for you.
Penelope, Arethusa, Ajax or Coventry are in.

My mistake for not thinking the option choices through. Considering all the hours you have put in for the naval write-ups. WTH was i thinking!!! sorry [:(]

[WarHunter]

Chinese attack weakness

Currently i lean against using it. There is not enough of a consensus to say China is op enough to use the rule. Using the option undercuts any observed reasons for using it.

If using the rule makes Japan attack the USSR more often, then its a bad rule.

The decision to attack the USSR with Japan should be one of the most pivotal choices in the game. It should not be connected with the use of an option. It should be based on the players choice of risk and gamble.

Currently i dont use the rule. Even if i play Japan, i want to be tested with the full weight of arms not half. From the crucible of Asia will come forth new doctrine. But it can only come from full measures not half-steps.

Anyone with some playing time using or not using this option should add their observations.

[brian brian]

I would suggest also reading up on the War in China some, the most mysterious part of WWII for most people. Chinese Attack Weakness is another rule used in the interests of realism. The historical Chinese were nothing like the World in Flames Chinese, and Japan will struggle on this new map if the Chinese know how to play the game. The 'full weight' of Chinese arms is WiF is many multiples of weight more than in history, in my opinion.

[WarHunter]

When WiF 1st came out a Chinese attack weakness option was not included. It came later.

With the changes in the size of Asia, we should look at all aspects of the simulation without dilution. I do my part by not using it. Others by using it.

I should also use it in a game, as others should not. At least to give time for both sides to be measured.

I'm very interested in what people are experiencing on the Asian map.

My problem with using the rule is that we don't truly know if it should be considered a main staple option yet. Yes, the war in China is mysterious. Reading about that history is a good thing to expand one's war mind. I wonder how many players from China currently play and what they think of the option, based on their knowledge of the war.

[Klydon]

Sort of sidetracked this fine AAR, but I have been playing with the weakness and perhaps it is my own newbness to the newer style of game, but I just don't see where Japan can afford to have a run at Russia in 1939 and probably 1940 as well. There simply isn't enough quality units to get the job done against even a not very good Russian defense to the point where the Russian will essentially decide to give up on the Pacific map and pack it in.

From my own experimentations so far, I find the Japanese can sort of mass up enough to make some noise in the south with Yamamato and the home island troops. Even with that, the Japanese will be hard pressed up north just for units to cover the front line to the point it doesn't look like Swiss cheese. I now typically yank the motorized infantry and HQ from up north if it looks like the Russians are not going to make a early push themselves (and so far, they have declined to do so despite the excellent Siberian units and Zhukov simply because they have to go so far to get anywhere meaningful along with the fact they don't have the rail cap or extra HQ to help out). Even with all this, it is really hard going against the Chinese to really get good attacks on them. Attacking at low odds in WiF is just asking for attrition the Japanese (who are very short on land units already) just can't take. What I find happens is the Chi-coms grow pretty quickly to become a very nasty force in the north and which are very capable of launching good attacks on even the better Japanese units or at least putting pressure on them to retreat while the Japanese have issues trying to mass enough troops to launch counter attacks.

My next game may well be to leave Canton on its own and pour all the troops into northern China and see what happens that way. The Chinese can't afford to totally abandon watching Canton or the Japanese will land a extra unit or two there to go on walk about around the Chinese country side.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: WarHunter

When WiF 1st came out a Chinese attack weakness option was not included. It came later.

With the changes in the size of Asia, we should look at all aspects of the simulation without dilution. I do my part by not using it. Others by using it.

I should also use it in a game, as others should not. At least to give time for both sides to be measured.

I'm very interested in what people are experiencing on the Asian map.

My problem with using the rule is that we don't truly know if it should be considered a main staple option yet. Yes, the war in China is mysterious. Reading about that history is a good thing to expand one's war mind. I wonder how many players from China currently play and what they think of the option, based on their knowledge of the war.

The writeups on the Chinese units were done by someone from China, referencing Chinese texts. I found them to be interesting.

[WarHunter]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
The writeups on the Chinese units were done by someone from China, referencing Chinese texts. I found them to be interesting.

Thanks for the heads up. They are informative write ups worth the read.

While a fix is on the way to continue Warspite1's AAR. We are just keeping his thread warm.

So Thanks everyone for the spirited conversation we have been having. It warms my heart.

[warspite1]

I'm hoping to get the game underway at the weekend. I have a saved game from early in the previous turn. This will take a while to work through - a load of impulses - but better than the alternative.

The carrier aircraft are still a problem but I think if I fly them off the carriers in the air re-base phase they may disappear. That's the hope anyway!

[Klydon]

If you have not tried, maybe take a crack at the auto saves. This is how I have been able to resume games a lot closer to where I ran into issues.