An Attempt to use MWiF to Simulated WW2 Reasonably Historically (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> After Action Report



Message


rkr1958 -> An Attempt to use MWiF to Simulated WW2 Reasonably Historically (3/1/2018 11:54:32 PM)

After four attempts to play MWiF competitively (albeit friendly) over the past year and a half, I’ve come to the conclusion that at best I’m a weak player and I’m ok with that. This weakness is compounded by the fact that I also try to play this game as an historical simulation. So poor execution combined with an historical play bias is a perfect formula to get one’s tail flamed, which happens to me quite regularly in my friendly completive play. Though both my opponents have be most gracious, I always seem to have that nagging feeling that I’m not giving them a good enough game especially in light of the time required to playing through a global war scenario.

In addition to my friendly competitive play attempts, I have several solo games under my belt. My favorite scenario by far is the Global War scenario. I love having all the land, air and naval forces of all the belligerents battling it out across the globe for six years to determine the fate of mankind. I love the scale, I love the mechanics (well most of the them anyway) and I love the feel that I get when I play MWiF. Most importantly, for me at least, I love the feeling of history “trying to come alive”. A feeling that, frankly I’ve lost recently and one that I’ve been longing to revive. To fill that “longing” over the past two years I’ve read a number of military books, albeit from the American perspective, but hey I’m American. For those interested, and even those who aren’t (), here’s my list in order read:
(1) "With the Old Breed" by Eugene Sledge.
(2) "Helmet for my Pillow" by Robert Leckie.
(3) "Islands of the Damned" by R.V. Burgin (Burgin was Eugene's squad leader).
(4) "You-ll Be SOR-REE!" by Sid Phillips (Sid and Eugene were best friends and grew up together in/near Mobile, AL).
(5) Shifting to the ETO. "Band of Brothers" by Stephen E. Ambrose
(6) "No Surrender" by James J. Sheeran
(7) "The Liberator" by Alex Kershaw
(8) Shifting back to the PTO. “The Admirals: Nimitz, Halsey, Leahy, and King--The Five-Star Admirals Who Won the War at Sea” by Walter R. Borneman
(9) "Under a Blood Red Sun." by John J. Domagalski
(10) “Behind Japanese Lines, An American Guerrilla in the Philippines” by Ray C. Hunt and Bernard Norling
(11) “The Battle of Midway” by Craig L. Stmonds.
(12) “How They Won the War in the Pacific: Nimitz and His Admirals” by Edwin P. Hoyt.
I also subscribe to the periodical magazine, “WWII History” published by WARFAREHISTORYNETWORK.com which I’ve been reading between books and MWiF play.

So those few of you who are still following all this may be asking, “So what is this all about?”. Well, I’ve been wondering pretty much since I completed my first global war scenario over three years ago whether it’s possible to use the MWiF game engine and mechanics to create a reasonably accurate historically simulation of WW-2? In other words, is it possible to bring the history of WW2 alive with MWiF, be entertained and do so with a minimum of house rules, scripting and faking it? Especially the later two, if I have to resort to scripting or faking it then I might as well rewatch the BBC 1974 series, “World at War”.

I’m not sure what will come for all this but I thought I’d document it along for those interested and / or wish to contribute. At this point this will be my third attempt in the last couple of months at this. I will discuss my failures as I move forward with this third attempt.




rkr1958 -> RE: An Attempt to use MWiF to Simulated WW2 Reasonably Historically (3/2/2018 12:48:39 AM)

In my latest abandoned attempt, which I decided to jettison late last evening, there were several things I tried which I liked and a few that I tried that I definitely didn't. I plan to cover a lot of those detail as I progress through this "AAR", so I won't bore you will them all just now; however, there were three things I tried which didn't work, which I don't see how I could make them work and which I don't plan to try again. They are:

(1) Cruisers in Flames,
(2) The Winter War between the USSR and Finland,
(3) Germany's invasion of Norway.

(1) Cruisers in flames - as you can probably tell by my reading list in the above post, I enjoy reading and learning about the naval aspect of WW2. I really like the idea of having the extra ships (i.e., CL's) and what they represent, however, these extra ships and the optional rule that comes with them just seems to give the allies too much of an advantage in the Battle of the Atlantic. There are more than enough ships, with plenty left over, to patrol all the sea areas threaten by axis subs and simultaneously support other missions. I feel it just unbalances the naval war too much in the allies favor, therefore in my 3rd upcoming restart I will not be playing with cruisers in flames.

(2) The Winter War - I definitely had fun fighting this one out but under the engine and mechanics of MWiF I just don't see how demanding the Finnish borderlands is a good thing for the USSR. Even if they're positioned as they were to fight Finland if Germany (i.e., Finland) refuses, the Soviets will (most likely) immediately lose two chits. Also, being at war with Finland presents a problem given the meager 5 land actions the communist get especially if the ChiComm's are being pushed by the Japanese in China, as they were in my last game.

(3) Germany's invasion of Norway - Again, I had fun fighting this battle but even if allied resistance is light and the KM is able to slip by the RN in the North Sea, which I scripted to allow in my last game, this operation ties up 3 to 4 German divisions, mostly likely it's airborne corps, 3 to 4 planes, an HQ-I and a quality infantry corps in order to quickly knock the Norwegians out. And all these forces are tied up at a time when they would be sorely missed on the western front in that fight against the French and Brits. And then there's the 13 CP's and 2 transports sure to be remotely setup by the CW and "evacuated" to safer waters as soon as the CW gets the chance. That's an outright gift of 21 BP's, which at this point in the game is approximately 120% of a single turn's production for the Brits. While the Germans do gain an additional RP, this gain, in my opinion, is just too small given what it cost to take and defend Norway not to mention the 21 BP gift to the CW. Invading Norway as the Germany's did historically makes absolutely no sense as MWiF now works.

[image]local://upfiles/31901/4DED7DF68A6E45869FE5CA89CC080731.jpg[/image]




brian brian -> RE: An Attempt to use MWiF to Simulated WW2 Reasonably Historically (3/2/2018 1:52:01 AM)

I read Rick Atkinson's "The Day of Battle" covering the US Army's maturation in Sicily and Italy after it's new-war baptism in Africa (his book "An Army at Dawn"). There is a third book I presume about D-Day and forward in western Europe. He is a currently working historian who uses lots of and lots of first person source material. I look forward to picking up the other two entries in the trilogy.


There is a lot of sausage-making in the WiF rules set, particularly in parts of the naval system. That is what makes the game so eminently playable however. The trade-off is that the game rewards playing to the rules system, like most wargames, really. It doesn't penalize you for sending out your infantry to die, over and over and over again, until your opponent is defeated. Only the Russians operated that way in WWII. The secret of "what to build", asked recently here is: the most boring units, the infantry. Anti-tank guns are pretty darn good too, for some powers. Gamers like to build the shiny stuff though.

I do however like how the game teaches you that aircraft now rule the seas - so build lots of them, the ones with long range, and you won't need to build very many ships. By 1945, the Royal Navy was taking sailors off ships to meet pressing manpower needs elsewhere. WiF players don't make that mistake.


It is good to practice campaigning in Norway. The next edition of the rules make it a dynamic theater. I played a solitaire game recently where the Allies rolled the worst possible result for the Axis in Norway - things did not go well for the Germans afterwards. But then I play the Royal Navy the way Churchill wanted to - on the attack. Oh, the places Allied units can go if the Baltic is open...

In RaW7, the Germans do have one option to minimize the fleet transfer to the Allies from the Norwegians, but it is expensive - use a Chit to call a Super Combined Impulse and invade every Norwegian port at once. You also need to just pull the trigger and Do It, but WiF players can be as nervous about losing their ships as Hitler is frequently accused of being, though he did ultimately lose many of his actually at sea. There is a good chance the German ships headed to the Arctic will slip past the Home Fleet, just as in history. In the North Sea, light a fire under Goering and put the Luftwaffe to work.

Strategically, it doesn't seem to gain you much. But Hitler's paranoia about the place is sometimes proven true when the W. Allies take a neutral Norway in 1943 and start causing a cavalcade of problems for Germany - it is a good way to "stretch" the Germans. So is Churchill's "Soft Underbelly" in the Balkans.

More interesting than attacking Norway, imo, is practicing an Axis attack on France while leaving The Netherlands neutral. That doesn't hand the CW up to 10 CP right there, and they might not miss them much until the Russians suddenly need them.


I find the Winter War also under-appreciated in the game. The Soviets don't have to actually push all the way to Helsinki and take the necessary casualties along the way. Threatening to do just that might reward them with a few goodies in the Far North, for one. If they force the Finns to circle the wagons around Helsinki, the Finns will probably not be able to cut the rail link to Murmansk on the first turn of Barbarossa. Then 2 factories can be railed there, a good way to maximize potential aid from The West. (Also good to ship a factory to Archangel and then store Western Oil there in the summer for use in the winter). 2 Chits is a serious thing though, especially in 1939. But the USA might have a couple three 0 or 1 chits in 1940, so...

An important thing you learn in the game is the importance of western aid to the Russians - very historical. The German wave has to be forced to crest somewhere for the Allies to win, and that somewhere is usually in Russia, not too far from the Volga.




rkr1958 -> RE: An Attempt to use MWiF to Simulated WW2 Reasonably Historically (3/2/2018 3:11:06 AM)

Brian - Thanks for the info/feedback. I agree 100%, especially after my previous failed two starts, that "playing to the rules" is a must. At least as I understand what that means. For me it means no scripting, no fudging to force an historical situation and no house rules. Now as I march forward in my third attempt, which likely won't be my last, to achieve historical bliss my combined command staffs of each major power will be subservient to the policies set by senior national leaders. In the case of the Democracies (USA, CW & France), these policies will be set by elected or appointed civilians who often times set policy without regard to optimizing military strategy or military builds. For example, when one plays MWiF as a game then who knows to quit build navy ship hulls in late 1943. I don’t plan on doing because this presupposes that one would know with near certainty when the war is going to end. Though I do, but I’m going to try to play as if I didn’t. And, as you state in your post, one can send cardboard counters out to die over and over without regard to morale or even anger on the home front. While sacrifices in war are necessary, needless or unacceptable losses in the Democracies will not be tolerated. After all, FDR has a 4th election to win in November 1944.

Now it's a totally different situation for the communist and fascistic where one man, in the case of Germany, Italy and the USSR, or a few men, in the case of Japan, are in absolute control of both their country and their country's armed forces. Even then, one can image a Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini or Mao giving in to some degree to a "sub-optimum" request in order to keep the peace among the services. For example, Hitler giving in to the Adm Rader and the KM by allowing the completion of the battleship Tirpitz in not only believable but happened historically.

My current planned approach for this next attempt is to act the part of the high command in this "Man's Army" and execute policies set by senior leaders through a series of standing orders (SO’s) or combined stand orders (CSO’s) issued from the high command to the various theater, army group and army commands. SO’s will be issued by the high command of one country to the armed forces of that country only. CSO’s will be issued by the combined high commands of two or more countries for the armed forces of those two or more countries. In any case, and I expect there to be some, where SO’s conflict with CSO’s; SO’s will be give priority over CSO’s by the country in question. It’s assumed that SO’s are private to that one country and not known by other countries, even ones allies.

I have drafted several SO’s and CSO’s for the major powers involved (i.e., USA, CW, France, China, Germany, Italy, Japan and the USSR) and tried to execute my previous game under a number of those draft. As I proceed with this AAR, which I calling the HIstorical AAR, or HIAAR, 2018-01, I will be presenting these SO’s and CSO’s for comment, critique and revision/deletion. I’m also soliciting ideas from the community from SO’s and CSO’s that they believe might improve the historical accuracy of this journey given the abilities and constraints of the MWiF gaming engine and ruleset.




rkr1958 -> RE: An Attempt to use MWiF to Simulated WW2 Reasonably Historically (3/2/2018 3:15:00 AM)

Oh, I must add that while I'm striving for historical accuracy and immersion; the most important thing is I want to have fun doing this since playing a full global scenario of MWiF and posting it in an AAR takes quite a bit of time and effort. Really what I'm staying, and I think all of you would agree and understand, I only want to keep doing this while it's fun. Once it becomes too much like work then it's time to step back, take a look, take a break and start again if one feels so inclined.




rkr1958 -> RE: An Attempt to use MWiF to Simulated WW2 Reasonably Historically (3/2/2018 3:17:01 AM)

HIAAR 2018-01. Optional Rules.

Note, the optional rule, "Cruisers in Flames" under the category of "Additional Units" is now off.

A very important point that I wish to make at this time. While I strive for historical simulation (i.e., accuracy and immersion), I wish to do so using MWiF campaign strategies and tactics that would be sound in competitive play though I approach this solo. Note that I exclude global strategies, or most of them anyway, that are employed by highly competitive and successful (M)WiF players. Though as we progress, I would be keenly interested in the community's thoughts on the (historical) believablity of some these strategies. For example, global strategies where the CW and Churchill abandoned the Med, or deploy a strong BEF and/or AEF to the Soviet Union in 1941/1942, Soviet armies abandoning their frontiers.

[image]local://upfiles/31901/3B6891DDA8834EA29DA9F6CDA9016369.jpg[/image]




rkr1958 -> RE: An Attempt to use MWiF to Simulated WW2 Reasonably Historically (3/2/2018 3:48:35 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian

I read Rick Atkinson's "The Day of Battle" covering the US Army's maturation in Sicily and Italy after it's new-war baptism in Africa (his book "An Army at Dawn"). There is a third book I presume about D-Day and forward in western Europe. He is a currently working historian who uses lots of and lots of first person source material. I look forward to picking up the other two entries in the trilogy.
By the way, thanks for the book recommendations too. I'll take a look and likely dive in to Mr. Atkinson's books after I finish the one I'm currently reading, which is (12) on my list above. That is, "How They Won the War in the Pacific: Nimitz and His Admirals” by Edwin P. Hoyt. Interesting read as the first edition of this book was published back in 1970. One thing I got very interested in after reading Mr. Stmodns, "The Battle of Midway" book was the "Flight to nowhere" launched from the USS Hornet. This flight included the famous VT-8 (Torpedo squadron 8) that attacked without fighter cover. All planes were shot down and all crews were killed except for Ensign Gay who was the squadron's navigator and piloted the last plane in the formation. Though he was shot down and his rear gunner killed he survived until rescued. He had a ringside seat to the sinking of the Japanese carriers. He went down in the middle of the Japanese KB task force.

The other two squadrons of the "flight to nowhere" VB-8 & VF-8 failed to find the Japanese. One theory is that they deliberately flew the wrong heading looking for a second carrier task force. Whey they launched only two of the four Japanese carriers at the battle of Midway has been seen. Regardless, the neither squadron had the fuel to get back to the Hornet. Many of the dive bombers returned to Midway and many of the fighters had to ditch in the ocean. One major positive was that most of the fighter pilots were rescued.




pzgndr -> RE: An Attempt to use MWiF to Simulated WW2 Reasonably Historically (3/2/2018 11:57:56 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rkr1958
... whether it’s possible to use the MWiF game engine and mechanics to create a reasonably accurate historically simulation of WW-2?


FWIW, whenever the AI gets implemented I expect it should take a reasonably accurate historical path for both sides. If there will be difficulty levels, then certainly at higher difficulty players should expect a few surprises and ahistorical strategies. Against a competent and historically accurate computer opponent, players can then try to stick to the historical strategies and see how well they do versus history. Other than that, this is still a game and anything goes within the rules.




Centuur -> RE: An Attempt to use MWiF to Simulated WW2 Reasonably Historically (3/2/2018 1:40:03 PM)

If you want to read a good book in English from the German perspective of the war, there's "Achtung Panzer" from Guderian, which is translated into English.




Sir Roland -> RE: An Attempt to use MWiF to Simulated WW2 Reasonably Historically (3/2/2018 3:57:32 PM)

quote:

"Most importantly, for me at least, I love the feeling of history ¡§trying to come alive¡¨."


You're not the only one who tries to play along a historical time line. At least it starts out that way.

WiF is a great "what if" wargame. With so much RNG going off. Time lines can easily go off the rails. The great discovery is how far the drift. Its also the fun.

What light does the rabbit hole lead to. As a simulation it can shock a player to see so many BP's in the Dead Pool. How far off the rails plans can fail or work.

A most understanding RNG is going to be desired. But desire will be all you get. Especially on those critical rolls. The ones that allow you the discretion of "what if".

MWiF does have a resource you could use to help decide some historical plans. The description of units. As far as the theater of war to send them. How they get used is unknown.

As a gamer. Its easy to look at the CRT and plan for the worse roll. I'm curious how you will tackle the puzzle ahead of you. Thanks for giving a heads up on this AAR.
Its going to be quite the journey. Looking forward to reading about it.

Best of Luck!

btw
Love the list of books, especially "With the Old Breed" by Eugene Sledge. Great book.

Currently reading https://www.amazon.com/Theres-War-Be-Won-United/dp/034541909X






rkr1958 -> RE: An Attempt to use MWiF to Simulated WW2 Reasonably Historically (3/2/2018 10:17:19 PM)

While do more research on the Battle of Midway I came across a site that had Adm Nimitz's op order to his task force commanders. I found it very interesting and thought I'd post it.

[image]local://upfiles/31901/14F89C14E46E481AAF0CD8D6ADDAE149.jpg[/image]




rkr1958 -> RE: An Attempt to use MWiF to Simulated WW2 Reasonably Historically (3/2/2018 10:18:30 PM)

I've attached a zip of the pdf of the entire order.




rkr1958 -> RE: An Attempt to use MWiF to Simulated WW2 Reasonably Historically (3/2/2018 10:24:12 PM)

By the way on page 1 of the Op order, under Task Force SIXTEEN there are two references to, "1 DL". My understanding of USN hull designation's is that DL stands for "Destroyer Leader", which was created in the 20's I believe. However, the first USN DL, DL-1, the Norfolk, wasn't commissioned until 1953 well after this period.

I was wondering if anyone knew what this designation meant back in 1942 where Nimitz issued this order?

[image]local://upfiles/31901/CA8073543A8F443A9E7544259EB23FA1.jpg[/image]




rkr1958 -> RE: An Attempt to use MWiF to Simulated WW2 Reasonably Historically (3/3/2018 5:28:19 AM)

Japanese and Soviet Tension.

This is more than just tension. Two weeks after the official start of the second world war on September 1st, 1939, the Japanese and Soviets are ending an undeclared war on the Mongolian and Manchurian border that's be raging for four months. This conflict was known as the Battles of Khalkhin Gol and the Soviets stopped the Japanese cold by defeating the Japanese 6th army. The battles of Khalkhin Gol were a result of Japan's design of what appears to be all of Soviet Asia.

To represent the aftermath of this undeclared war and the tensions between Japan and the USSR in Asia I will:

(1) Keep a Soviet army led by Zhukov and composed of his HQ unit, a Siberian corps and an artillery division on the border until the USSR is at war with Germany.

(2) This will be countered by keeping a Japanese HQ unit and two other corps on their side of the border, again, until Germany and the USSR are at war.

(3) The Soviets as soon as practical will move the Mongolian Cav corps to this border. The Japanese will then add a fourth ground unit to counter.

(4) With respect to the rest of Manchuria and Korea, Japan will station an additional four ground units in those two countries to counter the four additional Soviet units on or within 3-hexes of the Soviet Asian border with Manchuria.

In effect, this tension will tie up 8 Soviet and 8 Japanese ground units, including 1 HQ unit each, until the Soviets are at war with Germany.

[image]local://upfiles/31901/BBDBA96754174999BF03EA5399B82DB6.jpg[/image]




Courtenay -> RE: An Attempt to use MWiF to Simulated WW2 Reasonably Historically (3/3/2018 6:43:27 AM)

Somewhere on the net there is a fascinating history of this battle. The main point is that the Soviets won because of superior logistics. The Japanese didn't think the Soviets could even fight where they did, as the Japanese could not fight so far from their rail lines. However, the Soviets committed 8,000 trucks to the supply the battlefield, an effort the Japanese could not match. After that the Japanese really did not want to fight the Russians.




warspite1 -> RE: An Attempt to use MWiF to Simulated WW2 Reasonably Historically (3/3/2018 10:03:01 AM)

If you are ever interested in expanding your WWII reading material outside of a solely US focus then this excellent book is as good a place to start as any. This is especially pertinent given Pacific War to come.

Here is a short review I did for Amazon. Suffice to say this book got 5 stars.


Where? What?

Nomonhan is a little known military action fought by the Russian and Japanese Empires in the last months before the outbreak of World War II.

It was in fact only one of a number of battles and skirmishes (albeit by far the most important) that were fought by the two countries on the border of Russia and the Japanese occupied territory in Manchuria.

The author not only tells the story of the fighting that took place in this region, but also assesses the impact of the fighting and how this affected the decisions taken by Stalin and the Japanese government in the build up to World War II.

On the military side, the shortcomings of the Japanese armed forces in World War II can be plainly seen to have been in evidence in the way they conducted themselves before and during Nomonhan; the hot-headed Japanese officers and Gekokujo, the lack of sensible planning, the dismissive belief that the enemy was inferior, the inflexibility of Japanese operational plans - all were in evidence here.

This is a well written, interesting book and I thoroughly recommend it to anyone with an interest in World War II.

[image]local://upfiles/28156/6D192A4A252340F49C59AB40B05F1E68.jpg[/image]




rkr1958 -> RE: An Attempt to use MWiF to Simulated WW2 Reasonably Historically (3/3/2018 1:59:49 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1
Nomonhan is a little known military action fought by the Russian and Japanese Empires in the last months before the outbreak of World War II.This is a well written, interesting book and I thoroughly recommend it to anyone with an interest in World War II.
Thanks. Will definitely add it to my reading list!


quote:

ORIGINAL: Courtenay

Somewhere on the net there is a fascinating history of this battle. The main point is that the Soviets won because of superior logistics. The Japanese didn't think the Soviets could even fight where they did, as the Japanese could not fight so far from their rail lines. However, the Soviets committed 8,000 trucks to the supply the battlefield, an effort the Japanese could not match. After that the Japanese really did not want to fight the Russians.
Thanks. In the limited research on the "Battles of Khalkhin Gol" that I did I came across two points that struck me,
1. Most of the survivors on both sides of these battles died elsewhere in WW2. Either in Mother Russia facing the Nazi on-slaughter or in the islands of the Pacific defending against the Americans.

2. A lot of wounded Japanese soldiers that could have been saved were left to bleed out during battle. Japanese enlisted men were forbidden to give aid to their fellow wounded soldiers unless directly given permission by a Japanese officer to do so.




rkr1958 -> RE: An Attempt to use MWiF to Simulated WW2 Reasonably Historically (3/3/2018 4:22:51 PM)

Scrapped & Lent Air Unit.

I don't think I was shy about either scrapping units or lending air units.

[image]local://upfiles/31901/DE2FE1AB3A2C44C2AACD7018F5B705B5.jpg[/image]




rkr1958 -> RE: An Attempt to use MWiF to Simulated WW2 Reasonably Historically (3/3/2018 4:39:55 PM)

IJN & RN Sea Lift.

In looking at sea lift, I definitely was aggressive with respect to Japan and, less so but still, with respect to Great Britain. I wanted to ensure that both Japan and Great Britain got the highest quality sea lift available at start. As Japan, I rarely, if I've ever, built additional transports or amphibious units. With the CW, I've never built all of there sea lift during a game, so I wanted to ensure by scrapping the ones not built out were the poorer quality ones.

[image]local://upfiles/31901/A3036DEA21814986AB6AD46359869146.jpg[/image]




rkr1958 -> RE: An Attempt to use MWiF to Simulated WW2 Reasonably Historically (3/3/2018 5:04:58 PM)

Germany's Land Aircraft Draws.

Well I have to say that this is the worst draw for German land air that I've personally drawn or have seen anyone else draw. Of the 7 LND draws, 5 of which Germany could place at start, 6 had only 2 tactical factors! At least the 7th, Ju 87B, had 5. When you add in the one Bf 110C and two Bf-109 E2 fighter units, this gives the at start Luftwaffe,

(1) LND TAC factors = 1x5-TAC + 4x2-TAC = 13-TAC.
(2) F/B TAC factors = 1x3-TAC + 2x2-TAC = 7-TAC.

As a point of reference, in my last recently abandoned game, Germany's air draw was,

(3) LND TAC factors = 2x5-TAC + 1x4-TAC + 2x3-TAC = 20-TAC.
(4) F/B TAC factors = 1x3-TAC + 2x2-TAC = 7-TAC.

The Luftwaffe has some work to do in building up its tactical support. However, Germany really can't start this until next year (1940) after which time they'll get to scrap the two crappy LND2's (i.e., Ju86G), otherwise they have a 50/50 of drawing them instead of the two quality LND2's (i.e., Stuka Ju87B's).

[image]local://upfiles/31901/40869E2D3398493082643F3B15C7283B.jpg[/image]




warspite1 -> RE: An Attempt to use MWiF to Simulated WW2 Reasonably Historically (3/3/2018 5:46:09 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

Scrapped & Lent Air Unit.

I don't think I was shy about either scrapping units or lending air units.

[image]local://upfiles/31901/DE2FE1AB3A2C44C2AACD7018F5B705B5.jpg[/image]
warspite1

Apologies if I've got the wrong end of the stick but if this is about creating a more historic version of the game then why would you scrap the Swordfish or the Anson?




rkr1958 -> RE: An Attempt to use MWiF to Simulated WW2 Reasonably Historically (3/3/2018 8:36:51 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Apologies if I've got the wrong end of the stick but if this is about creating a more historic version of the game then why would you scrap the Swordfish or the Anson?

No, my apologies ... I scrapped them because I didn't know better. I just added that to my list of what not to do next. If you don't mind, for historical flavor can you provide me insight about the roles and accomplishments of these aircraft during the war.




rkr1958 -> RE: An Attempt to use MWiF to Simulated WW2 Reasonably Historically (3/3/2018 8:46:59 PM)

August 24, 1939. Polish intercept and decryption of German ULTRA messages sent from OKW (Berlin) to the following three German commands:
(1) German's Commander and Chief, Polish Front (CINC-P).
(2) Germany's Corps Commander, Kiel Military District (KMD).
(3) Germany's Army Commanders, Rhineland & Stuttgart Military Districts (RMD, SMD).

Though immediately relayed to civilian and military leadership with access to decoded ULTRA, the information contained within the intercepts though worrisome is not overly so because of the confidence that the Polish government has in the fact that both Great Britain and France, in fulfillment to their pledges to Poland, will directly come to Poland's aid in their hour of need.

[image]local://upfiles/31901/FF17AEAF01714C4D929B9E08AAA684EC.jpg[/image]




rkr1958 -> RE: An Attempt to use MWiF to Simulated WW2 Reasonably Historically (3/4/2018 1:02:29 AM)

NOT FOR THIS GAME BUT FOR THE PREVIOUS GAME -- Situation in Poland Post Surprise Impulse.

For an all out German attack on Poland, which applies to both this and my previous game, I sorta fell into predicable German and Polish setups. This has led to a predictable Polish campaign where four automatic attacks produced the situation shown. Then, really independent of weather except for storms, the next two German impulses result in a near automatic attacks on Lodz and Warsaw. For the attack on Warsaw (3rd axis impulse), the Germans are in position to take a combine and either put in place the 3 CP's, or replace them, need to ship the 3 Swedish RP's to German factories.

Well after a half dozen or so plays of the Polish campaign, the Poles threw the Germans a curveball in their setup. In fact, when I set the Germans, though I was to set the Poles up afterwards, I wound up surprising myself.

[image]local://upfiles/31901/F0842B24288B42C1960D8A9CE4347AA2.jpg[/image]




rkr1958 -> RE: An Attempt to use MWiF to Simulated WW2 Reasonably Historically (3/4/2018 1:14:55 AM)

HIAAR-2018-01 (Now Back to our Current Game). German and Polish Setups.

Before I get to the Polish curveball, I'd like to note the following:

(1) German placed her three fort hexsides to bolster the defenses of Kiel and Bremen from amphibious invasions.
(2) Note the four divisions of the Kiel Military District (KMD) Corps.
(3) Note the overwhelming strength available to CINC-P, commander of the Polish Theater.

Now the Polish curveball was to place the cavalry corps normally placed in the words northeast of Warsaw, in the clear hex northeast of Pozan. The Polish High Command debated this merits of this attack but in the end thought the risk of a surprise impulse attack on Warsaw was worth it. While the odds of this attack would be high, it wouldn't be certain and if the attack failed then Poland would last into next turn. Also, given the disposition of German forces, this setup denies the four automatic attack generally made by the Germans even if they didn't take the Warsaw attack bait.

I truly surprise myself with this one.


[image]local://upfiles/31901/BCBE3845BE674634A09205C4B7280A9E.jpg[/image]




rkr1958 -> RE: An Attempt to use MWiF to Simulated WW2 Reasonably Historically (3/4/2018 2:02:04 AM)

September 1, 1939.

At 4:45 a.m., 1.5 million German troops invade Poland all along its 1,750-mile border with German-controlled territory. Though China has been at war in Asia for nearly 8-years now, World War 2 has official begun.

[image]local://upfiles/31901/BC52FAA983234DA0A6CFF2E9C24C88BC.jpg[/image]




rkr1958 -> RE: An Attempt to use MWiF to Simulated WW2 Reasonably Historically (3/4/2018 2:24:54 AM)

Turn 1. 9/1/39. Axis #1. Germany's Surprise Impulse. Invasion of Poland.

Germany does indeed take the Warsaw attack bait. With +1.5 odds modifier in HQ support from von Bock and another +3.6 from 18 factors of ground support(5,2,2 factors doubled due to surprise), the Germans were able to moved the attack odds from +9.6, which gave only a 68.8% chance of victory, to +14.7, which gave a 96.1% chance. These two modifiers, and oh not to mention the most important factor of all which is attack factors attacking across rivers get full value (i.e., are not halved) during the surprise impulse, made this attack a go. Still, there was a 4% chance of utter failure (i.e., Warsaw holds, all attacking forces are disorganized and Germany loses 1 or 2 units) which likely would have resulted in Poland surviving the turn. In the end, CINC-P deemed 4% risk acceptable. Germany missed a fractional (i.e., 70% chance of getting +15), conducted the attack at +14 and rolled average (i.e., an 11), which was good enough to get the best result.

Germany also conduct two other, both of which were automatic, land combats. One to take Pozan and the other to destroy and achieve a breakthrough against the Polish inf division in the woods 2 hexes southwest of Lodz.

Two things worth noting:

(1) Germany advanced only one unit into Warsaw adjacent to Lodz and their defenders. Only one, albeit a strong one, corps was advanced to reduce the potential harm of a Polish ground strike on units adjacent to Lodz, which needs to fall in order to conquer Poland.
(2) CINC-P failed on one of his surprise impulse objectives, which was the capture the Port City of Gdynia. Oh well, the port city will fall next impulse and given the capture of Warsaw on the surprise impulse this is something that OKW will just have to live with.

[image]local://upfiles/31901/A50B8E66653240BC878F75BAB8584BAF.jpg[/image]




rkr1958 -> RE: An Attempt to use MWiF to Simulated WW2 Reasonably Historically (3/4/2018 3:15:25 AM)

War Diaries (example).

I plan on keeping air, naval, land combat, and other war diaries which I plan to present at the end of each turn for (or summarizing) that turn. Below are examples of the air war and land combat diaries for German on their surprise impulse with Poland. I will take time to explain my shorthand and the stats I plan to collect.

Air War Diary.
For all the air missions I remember to record this diary will capture the Nav air, ground strike (GSTK), ground support (GSPT) and Port Attacks (PA) made through the game for all nations. The diary will include for all air missions the turn, impulse, attacker (or attacking power), defender (or power being targeted), air mission type, target hex, number and type of air sent, whether or not the mission is opposed and which air units are cleared.

For a ground support (GSPT) mission the total number of factors added to the land combat will be recorded.

For a ground strike mission (GSTK), the following data will be recorded:
Prob(0): This is the probability that given the tactical factors clear, weather and terrain what is the probability that the ground strike will disorganize a given unit in the hex attacked. For example, during the surprise impulse German conducted a ground strike against Lodz, which contained a HQ-I, inf corps and FTR2, with a FTR3 (3 TAC factors) and 2 LND3 (2 TAC factors each). With no terrain or weather modifications, and given it was the surprise impulse, the probability that any given unit was disorganized is equal to, 1 - (0.7*0.7)*(0.8*0.8)*(0.8*0.8) = 0.7993.
D: D is the number of organized defenders in the hex attacked, which in our example is 3 (HQ-I, inf, FTR2).
Ex # Disorg: Is the expected number of units disorganized by the strike, which is 0.7993*2 = 2.4 in our example.
Act # Disorg: Is the actual number disorganized.
Act-Ex # Disorg: Is the difference between the actual and expected number disorganized. If negative then the ground strike results favored the defender and if positive it favored the attacker.

Land Combat Diary.

This diary includes turn, impulse, the attacker, defender and target hex. It also includes the number of attacking ground units, number of defending ground unit, CRT (i.e., assault or blitz) and odds. The remaining columns will be explained in more detail and are:
PWIN: Is the probability that the defender will leave the targeted hex vacant, either through retreat and/or loss of units, and the attacker has at least one surviving unit which can advance into the target hex if desired.
Retreat/BrkThru: Is only non-zero for Blitz attacks and is the probability that a Blitz attack achieves a breakthrough or forces any surviving defenders to retreat.
Ex Def Kill: Is the expected number of defenders killed.
Prob Att Loses 3: Is the probability that the attacker will lose 3 units (i.e., the dreaded 14 on the assault table under those conditions calling for an extra loss).
Prob Att No Loss: Is the probability that the attacker will not take any losses. A very important number if the attack is aided by an engineer.
Ex Att. Lost: Is the expected number of attackers lost.
Prob Att Org: Is the probability that all attackers will remain organized, which the obvious exception of an HQ unit providing support.
Prob Att 1/2 Org: Is the probability that half of the surviving attackers (round up) remain organized.
Prob Att Disorg: Is the probability that all surviving attackers are disorganized.
Ex Att. Disorg: Is the expected number of attackers disorganized. Note that Ex Att. Disorg + Ex Att. Lost will never, can never, exceed the total number of attackers. Otherwise there's a bug in my calculations that need correcting.
WIN: Is 1 if the attack is successful and 0 if not.
WIN - PWIN: Is the difference between WIN and PWIN. If negative then the land combat went in the favor of the defender, if positive then in favor of the attacker.
Act Def Kill: Is the actual number defenders killed.
Act - Ex Def. Kill: Is the difference between the actual and expected number of defenders killed.
Act Att. Kill: Is the actual number attackers killed.
Act - Ex Att. Kill: Is the difference between the actual and expected number of attackers killed.
Act Att. Disorg: Is the actual number surviving attackers disorganized.
Act - Ex Att. Disorg: Is the difference between the actual and expected number of surviving attackers disorganized.

Phew ...

[image]local://upfiles/31901/056B62FEF7F04B429CABBCBB2AC860A5.jpg[/image]




rkr1958 -> RE: An Attempt to use MWiF to Simulated WW2 Reasonably Historically (3/4/2018 3:22:51 AM)

September 3, 1939.

At 1115 BST the Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain, announced the British deadline for the withdrawal of German troops from Poland had expired.

He said the British ambassador to Berlin had handed a final note to the German government this morning saying unless it announced plans to withdraw from Poland by 1100, a state of war would exist between the two countries.

Mr Chamberlain continued: "I have to tell you now that no such undertaking has been received and consequently this country is at war with Germany."

Similarly the French issued an ultimatum, which was presented in Berlin at 1230, saying France would be at war unless a 1700 deadline for the troops' withdrawal was adhered to.

[image]local://upfiles/31901/779693C3180245D5BDDFC3702C54712E.jpg[/image]




warspite1 -> RE: An Attempt to use MWiF to Simulated WW2 Reasonably Historically (3/4/2018 6:44:58 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Apologies if I've got the wrong end of the stick but if this is about creating a more historic version of the game then why would you scrap the Swordfish or the Anson?

No, my apologies ... I scrapped them because I didn't know better. I just added that to my list of what not to do next. If you don't mind, for historical flavor can you provide me insight about the roles and accomplishments of these aircraft during the war.
warpite1

The Anson is an aircraft that I suspect is always scrapped in WIF - and with little wonder. But the sad fact is in 1939 this aircraft formed the backbone of Coastal Command (10 squadrons). Some of the problems were:

- not suitable for combat (1 fixed forward .303 machine gun (and one in a rear turret)
- a bomb load of just 4 x 100 pounders (not sure what they were supposed to do to a submarine....)
- here's the real doozy when one considers the purpose of Coastal Command - the Anson had insufficient range to patrol all the way to the Norwegian coast.....

So to be more realistic I think the Commonwealth should have to waste a pilot on this.

This aircraft says quite a lot about British preparedness for war in 1939. [Suggestion: I think the RAF should also be ensure that it has a Fairey Battle counter in the game if at all possible come May 1940].

As for the Swordfish... well this biplane was the backbone of the small Fleet Air Arm in 1939. Unlike the Anson (which was relegated to a training role where it enjoyed a long career (but not needed in WIF)) this antiquated aircraft did at least prove its combat worth - Taranto and the killing of Bismarck being perhaps its finest hours. The losses during the 'Channel Dash' proved that it was hopelessly obsolete, although the losses when attacking Scharnhorst in Norway in 1940 kind of confirmed that anyway. In WIF the FAA will have this aircraft as a carrier plane but there should be probably be a land based one too. At least unlike the Anson, the WIF Swordfish are actually useful - low range but good ASW component and perfect for the 0-box.

Faithful Annie (top) and the Stringbag (below)
[image]local://upfiles/28156/2ABA930D48B5468B8EA7509F949DD20B.jpg[/image]




Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.046875