Matrix Games Forums

The following points are relevant to this AAR.

• I'll be playing the Lebensraum scenario (basically Global War starting from 22nd June 1941) with all optional rules.
• I plan to post about once per week... this AAR is a by-product of the testing, not the other way around.
• There is no AI used in this campaign and therefore it will not be strategically intelligent (make of that what you will). There will be ungarrisoned beaches which are ignored by the enemy and undefended convoys happily co-existing with idling wolf packs of submarines. This is because I am not playing this campaign to win for either side but rather to test out the game mechanics. Consequently I will not respond to comments like "Why don't you invade in the south where he's weak?" but I'm happy to respond to questions like "Can you show us how to do an amphibious invasion?"
• I'll try to show the use of the various Forms as I go rather than concentrating on the strategic situation. So if you're looking to buy MWiF on 27th July 2009 then this AAR will give you a little head start on the learning curve.
• I won't discuss the progress of the game or comment on requests for enhancements. Those discussions should be posted in the appropriate sticky threads at the top of the MWiF Forum.

AAR
The USA Atlantic fleet is setting up on the West Coast. The crew of the USS Ranger are hearing a lecture about the history of their ship.
All air, naval and land units (including HQ Leaders) have similar commentaries

Ummm. Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't that the East Coast?   

You might think so but remember that I'm from Australia and everything is reversed south of the equator [;)]

Thanks Greyshaft, I will look closely at it.

Is possible rename the counters?

I look forward to reading more!

ORIGINAL: Blind Sniper

Thanks Greyshaft, I will look closely at it.

Is possible rename the counters?

Yes.

There are a few that cannot be renamed because of their special capabilities (e.g., Stilwell). Also, renaming units would have to be done for each new game, since determining which units are to be setup (and where) requires many units to not have their names changed. For example, all the capital ships are referenced by name for which ones set up where (and the same for HQ units).

A more elaborate system could be developed, but that falls into my category of WIF design kit - not part of MWIF product 1.

ORIGINAL: Blind Sniper

Thanks Greyshaft, I will look closely at it.

Is possible rename the counters?

Yes.

I was just setting up the CW in Lebensraum and I was thinking that the Osprey carrier fighter must get the award for the most useless air unit in the game. There are four Osprey fighters in the setup and, as with all WiF counters, there are minor variations in the combat factors between counters. Here is the worst one:

Air to Air: 0
Air to Sea : None
Tactical Bombing : None
Strategic Bombing : None
Range : 3

I guess if they are all that stand between your carrier and a couple of waves of Ju-87D Stuka divebombers (air to air factor of three) then they might hold the enemy off long enough for you to abandon ship in an orderly fashion, but don't count on it. It's actually quite sad for the CW that these fighters are still in the setup pool in mid-1941, but for this game I think I'll scrap them immediately.

In the WiF system Air-to-Air combat is a relative strength so a factor of zero doesn't mean that the unit is unarmed, merely that it fights less effectively than an aircraft with a strength of one (Arado Ar-68) or two (defensive fire from a Dornier Do-17M) or three (Gloster Gladiator) ... or thirteen (Me262 A-1c) or fourteen (Gotha Go229B).

Combat Air Patrol
I prefer to believe this is the worst one. [:D]
A private venture intended to compete with the Sopwith Snipe, the Osprey was of wooden construction with fabric skinning and was powered by a 230hp Bentley B.R.2 nine-cylinder rotary engine. Armament comprised two fixed and synchronised 7.7mm Vickers machine guns and one semi-free Lewis gun of similar calibre on the rear spanwise member of the middle-wing centre section. The Osprey was flown for the first time in February 1918, but performance proved to be inferior to that of the Snipe, and construction of second and third prototypes was abandoned.

ORIGINAL: Greyshaft

I was just setting up the CW in Lebensraum and I was thinking that the Osprey carrier fighter must get the award for the most useless air unit in the game. There are four Osprey fighters in the setup and, as with all WiF counters, there are minor variations in the combat factors between counters. Here is the worst one:

Air to Air: 0
Air to Sea : None
Tactical Bombing : None
Strategic Bombing : None
Range : 3

I guess if they are all that stand between your carrier and a couple of waves of Ju-87D Stuka divebombers (air to air factor of three) then they might hold the enemy off long enough for you to abandon ship in an orderly fashion, but don't count on it. It's actually quite sad for the CW that these fighters are still in the setup pool in mid-1941, but for this game I think I'll scrap them immediately.

In the WiF system Air-to-Air combat is a relative strength so a factor of zero doesn't mean that the unit is unarmed, merely that it fights less effectively than an aircraft with a strength of one (Arado Ar-68) or two (defensive fire from a Dornier Do-17M) or three (Gloster Gladiator) ... or thirteen (Me262 A-1c) or fourteen (Gotha Go229B).

Happily, you can scrap old units, and you'd be either unlucky or unskilled if you ended up with such Ospreys on your flying decks. [:D]

Hawker Osprey



See the history of the Osprey at this link

ORIGINAL: Greyshaft

[*] I plan to post about once per week... this AAR is a by-product of the testing, not the other way around.

Hi Greyshaft, i really like when you post screenshots like that, thank you. It familiarizes me already with the game.

ORIGINAL: SewerStarFish

Combat Air Patrol
I prefer to believe this is the worst one. [:D]
A private venture intended to compete with the Sopwith Snipe, the Osprey was of wooden construction with fabric skinning and was powered by a 230hp Bentley B.R.2 nine-cylinder rotary engine. Armament comprised two fixed and synchronised 7.7mm Vickers machine guns and one semi-free Lewis gun of similar calibre on the rear spanwise member of the middle-wing centre section. The Osprey was flown for the first time in February 1918, but performance proved to be inferior to that of the Snipe, and construction of second and third prototypes was abandoned.

You're showing a picture of the Austin A.F.T.3 Osprey which was flown for the first and last times in 1918 and never entered service with the CW. The MWiF setup refers to the Hawker Osprey which was in service with the Fleet Air Arm from 1931 to 1944.

Same name... different aircraft.

coooool. I predict an epic future for this thread!

Should be an interesting war in the Med because the CW neglected to set up any units in Tobruk. My excuse was that I was more interested in deploying the fort hexside counters around El Alamein and trying to crash the system by moving the fort hexsides after initial deployment (it didn't crash).  In a normal game I'd ask for a Mulligan and it would be a pretty dastardly opponent who refused to let me correct my oversight but in a computer game I'm stuck with my setup.

ORIGINAL: Greyshaft

Hawker Osprey


See the history of the Osprey at this link

The history of the Fleet Air Arm is rather odd. In the early 20's (IIRC) all air services were combined under one command. The joint command was more interested in developing land-based fighters and to a lesser extent bombers than anything else.

The Navy, itself, wasn't all that concerned about having a frontline fighter, as in their mind, carrier-based fighters were there mostly to shoot down or drive off enemy spotter aircraft. Given that they would often be operating well within range of land-based air, the British navy placed more reliance on their armored flight decks and extensive AA batteries than on carrier aviation. While those armored decks did serve them well, they soon found out that there isn't enough AA in the world to stop a determined attacker. Because they were so far behind the curve on developing quality naval fighters, the British relied heavily on American imports.

Interestingly enough, both the Navy and the Air command dismissed any concerns about submarine warfare, figuring that WWI had shown that the submarine was not an effective threat. The Navy had no intention to automatically restart convoys in the event of war, and the air service hadn't put any effort into developing patrol aircraft.

Thanks for posting this thread Greyshaft. I'll be keeping an eye on this. Please post pictures!

ORIGINAL: Charlie Lewis

Interestingly enough, both the Navy and the Air command dismissed any concerns about submarine warfare, figuring that WWI had shown that the submarine was not an effective threat. The Navy had no intention to automatically restart convoys in the event of war, and the air service hadn't put any effort into developing patrol aircraft.

I'm going to copy a post I put up on the WWII- Eoad to Victory site:

As ya'll know, I've repeatedly made the arguement that the Nazis consistantly lead the Allies/Comintern powers in technology. A little light reading has reminded me of some of the reasons why I hold that opinion. (I've been re-reading Len Deighton's Blood, Tears and Folly, which I highly recommend for its revisionist British look at the war.)
Deighton makes a number of salient points concerning British cultural shortcomings involving education (less than 1% of British males attended university prior to WWII,) government ineptitude (the stories concerning armor piercing shells that broke up on impact, bombs that consistantly failed to explode, and explosives that were known to be less than 50% as effective than German explosives to name just a few, make the U. S. Navy's problems with its Mark XIV torpedo seem like cute, cuddly confusion!), Union ludditeism and general bloodymindedness (on discovering a gang of British yard workers playing cards in the Captains day cabin during a refit of his corvette after a long, particularly nasty Atlantic patrol, a Royal Navy officer was ordered "not to make a scene for fear of causing a strike!") and the simply amazing ineptitude of British upper level commanders of every branch of service. But the most telling indicator of German economic and technical superiority concerns machine tools -- the equipment needed to produce intricate and advanced weapon components such as aircraft radar or proximity fuses. Quite simply, in 1939 when Germany was the worlds largest exporter of machine tools, the UK had to import the tubes (valves) for its radar sets and aircraft instruments such as altimeters because they simply couldnt be produced in the home islands. Ever wonder why the British consistantly mounted Swedish anti-aircraft guns on their ships -- there's a reason!

Deighton tells a great story about the Technical Committee holding a meeting in the summer of 1941 which was to determine if the Germans were using Radar. This was a full year after a German radar set had been captured and identified by the British radar boffins.

The Royal Air Force, which had been firmly in the control of the strategic bomber types almost since the end of WWI, managed to think that they were prepared to mount a strategic bombing campaign against Germany with a force of less than 50 Handley Page Hampdens and Vickers Wellington two engine bombers which had a practical service ceiling of 10,000 feet.

"Mein Fuhrer... I have Good News and Bad News"
"   Ach, I love these jokes. Go ahead Hermann, tell me the Good News."
"Joke?  Uh... ze Good News is that the British left Tobruk ungarissoned and ve have occupied it without a fight."
"   And they left all their beer behind and our troops got drunk and burned it down?"
"No. Really truly mein Fuhrer, we have taken Tobruk. "
"   You are not joking?"
"No mein Fuhrer."
"   Wonderbar! Then who cares about the Bad News?"
"Our troops in Russia care, Mein Fuhrer. It seems that the weather for the first turn of our invasion of Russia is snow across the entire front line."
"   The entire front line?"
"Apart from the storms near Memel and Odessa"
"   Uh... that's not good, is it Hermann?"
"No mein Fuhrer."

ORIGINAL: Michael the Pole

ORIGINAL: Charlie Lewis

Interestingly enough, both the Navy and the Air command dismissed any concerns about submarine warfare, figuring that WWI had shown that the submarine was not an effective threat. The Navy had no intention to automatically restart convoys in the event of war, and the air service hadn't put any effort into developing patrol aircraft.

I'm going to copy a post I put up on the WWII- Eoad to Victory site:

As ya'll know, I've repeatedly made the arguement that the Nazis consistantly lead the Allies/Comintern powers in technology. A little light reading has reminded me of some of the reasons why I hold that opinion. (I've been re-reading Len Deighton's Blood, Tears and Folly, which I highly recommend for its revisionist British look at the war.)
Deighton makes a number of salient points concerning British cultural shortcomings involving education (less than 1% of British males attended university prior to WWII,) government ineptitude (the stories concerning armor piercing shells that broke up on impact, bombs that consistantly failed to explode, and explosives that were known to be less than 50% as effective than German explosives to name just a few, make the U. S. Navy's problems with its Mark XIV torpedo seem like cute, cuddly confusion!), Union ludditeism and general bloodymindedness (on discovering a gang of British yard workers playing cards in the Captains day cabin during a refit of his corvette after a long, particularly nasty Atlantic patrol, a Royal Navy officer was ordered "not to make a scene for fear of causing a strike!") and the simply amazing ineptitude of British upper level commanders of every branch of service. But the most telling indicator of German economic and technical superiority concerns machine tools -- the equipment needed to produce intricate and advanced weapon components such as aircraft radar or proximity fuses. Quite simply, in 1939 when Germany was the worlds largest exporter of machine tools, the UK had to import the tubes (valves) for its radar sets and aircraft instruments such as altimeters because they simply couldnt be produced in the home islands. Ever wonder why the British consistantly mounted Swedish anti-aircraft guns on their ships -- there's a reason!

Deighton tells a great story about the Technical Committee holding a meeting in the summer of 1941 which was to determine if the Germans were using Radar. This was a full year after a German radar set had been captured and identified by the British radar boffins.

The Royal Air Force, which had been firmly in the control of the strategic bomber types almost since the end of WWI, managed to think that they were prepared to mount a strategic bombing campaign against Germany with a force of less than 50 Handley Page Hampdens and Vickers Wellington two engine bombers which had a practical service ceiling of 10,000 feet.

Warspite1

And your point is? There`s nothing new in what Deighton says. To go back a step, I have no idea how they did it, but one of the great mysteries in life is how the German (and indeed Japanese) nations achieved what they did in terms of industrial success. They achieved this remarkable turn around in relatively short time from unification (in the case of the Germans) and the decision to open the country once more after years of self-imposed exile (in the case of Japan). If you want to know more then read The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers – a brilliant BALANCED book.

However, why do people feel the need to print so mocking, self regarding articles as the one you posted? Why pick on the British – and to a lesser extent the Americans – whose crime was defeating Hitler in a war they never asked for. Try reading Max Hastings Armageddon which tries to put into focus, why the Allies took so long to win the war.

As far as individual points are concerned, The Royal Air Force thinking was no different to most countries – the bomber will always get through – well they were wrong. But the service chiefs coped with the little they had given the depression of the twenties and cash strapped thirties. But as you say, the Germans were light years ahead of the bumbling, useless British…….Spitfire? Rubbish aircraft.

Deighton tells the story of the Technical Committee and radar? I suspect there is a whole lot more to that story but why let facts get in the way of a good story. Albert Speer tells the story of Hermann Goering, whose reaction to being told that a long range Allied fighter had crashed in Germany simply replied – No it hasn`t – and that ended that conversation.

As for the last two points, firstly, yes there were problems with the unions, and shocking as it sounds, there were a huge number of days lost to industrial action during the war. During my naval write-ups I have come across a number of ships whose completion was delayed due to strike action. Is Britain the exception then? The Commander of the Pacific Fleet found a similar problem in Australia, we know France was crippled by industrial action and general unrest. I have never read of instances in the US but would be surprised if there were none there. Why no such stories in Germany or Japan (or Russia)? Maybe something to do with the fact that any such action would be met with a bullet or a visit to one of their camps…..

German technical superiority. Have you ANY idea how many ships the Germans did NOT sink at the start of the war due to faulty torpedoes? Or has that point been ignored as it does not fit the argument? “The British were prepared to mount a strategic bombing campaign with 50 Hampdens and Wellingtons” What? How could they be so stupid? You will be telling me next that they tried to invade Russia with MkI and MkII tanks still making up a large part of their armoured forces? Or that they would try and break their opponents vulnerable sea lanes with a handful of ocean going submarines….Oh no, that was the Germans.

Were the Germans generally better at building/manufacturing high quality steel, optical instruments etc etc? Yes. Were the British in industrial decline? Yes - they had been for sixty years before that.

But I repeat; the point is? Would you have preferred that in 1939 we simply said, right we can`t compete with the Germans – our planes, tanks, ships etc are all rubbish, we as a nation of individuals are all useless, we made strategic and operational mistakes with convoys and types of aircraft and, well just about everything else - so we will give this war a miss.