Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: 4 player game

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> After Action Report >> RE: 4 player game Page: <<   < prev  48 49 50 51 [52]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: 4 player game - 3/26/2019 5:01:13 PM   
Courtenay


Posts: 3279
Joined: 11/12/2008
Status: online
I have seen MWiF do strange things with units before; it probably didn't have anything to do with the edit. However, I have always been suspicious of any game where that happened.

_____________________________

I thought I knew how to play this game....

(in reply to Mayhemizer)
Post #: 1531
RE: 4 player game - 3/26/2019 5:53:34 PM   
Centuur


Posts: 8131
Joined: 6/3/2011
From: Hoorn (NED).
Status: offline
Are any of you beta testers? If so, I would suggest to use the debug tool which is available in a beta test version.

If you are at the end of any phase where CW units can be moved and the carrier is in a port, you can simply remove the CVP from the game (save the game first). If you do, both units should be removed from the map and only one will become visible in the removed pool.

After you've done this, you should be able to use debug a second time to put the unit back unto the map and load it on the carrier.

< Message edited by Centuur -- 3/26/2019 5:54:12 PM >


_____________________________

Peter

(in reply to Courtenay)
Post #: 1532
RE: 4 player game - 3/28/2019 7:57:06 AM   
Mayhemizer


Posts: 6535
Joined: 9/7/2011
From: Finland
Status: online
Can we move on and play impulse until we are at the end of CW naval phase, then post save file here and ask some beta tester try to fix this?

(in reply to Centuur)
Post #: 1533
RE: 4 player game - 3/28/2019 8:48:11 AM   
peskpesk


Posts: 1889
Joined: 7/17/2003
From: Stockholm, Sweden
Status: online
Lets try that.

_____________________________

"'Malta - The Thorn in Rommel's Side"

(in reply to Mayhemizer)
Post #: 1534
RE: 4 player game - 3/28/2019 2:53:27 PM   
jjdenver

 

Posts: 1819
Joined: 11/2/2007
Status: offline
Ok we will move. Allies have had a council of war and decided to probably pull Gort out of Suez. The other option is to sail RN to 4 box of Red Sea and try to use shore bombardment to hold Suez while landing another Indian INF. It's a tough decision - we will think about it some more and maybe I have time to do CW naval move in morning.

(in reply to peskpesk)
Post #: 1535
RE: 4 player game - 3/30/2019 2:26:38 PM   
jjdenver

 

Posts: 1819
Joined: 11/2/2007
Status: offline
After starting the turn and getting mostly through naval moves, the allies had a talk.

Axis have dropped email saying they are fine to take allied surrender in the game. SU thinks maybe they can fight on to amuse Axis.

But as west allies I feel game is over. In a game where Axis have their shot through 42 or 43 then probably they should continue playing through 44 and sometimes 45 to give allies the chance to come back and do some attacking. However in this game allies never got their shot and there is no chance for allies to do much. I see conquest of SU in the future that can't be stopped. So to me the game is a foregone conclusion and there is not really a moral imperative for allies to continue to give the Axis their chance to attack - the whole game has been Axis beating babies with a hammer. As Axis I know from playing in games like this that at some point it ceases to be fun. At least it does for me. In my last completed game I was playing allies - landing in Japan and attacking through Poland and Italy and low countries when Axis player indicated that he wanted to surrender. When he explained why I realized that yes he had no chance and my "fun factor" had diminished from 44 to 45 as the resistance that Axis could put up faded.

I joined this game in 40 and at the time I told my ally that I thought the game was probably already lost. China was a fait accompli, CW had more problems than a math book, and USE wasn't good. Then I compounded the problem by suggesting SU should attack JP. But SU wasn't in position for this and was only able to launch an ill-prepared attack later in 40. I was stuck thinking about how I play SU which is to be ready to go into Manchuria if JP commits everything to China. I should have considered the _actual_ situation which didn't favor an SU attack because SU was not in position for this. I think this played a critical role in making sure that the small remaining chance for allied victory was flushed down the toilet.

Axis played a great game. I didn't see/read much about the early part of the game but the invasion of Malta then mid-east was excellently done. I thought maybe there was too much splitting of effort by axis in France (Bordeaux) and mid-east to allow Barbarossa to do very well. But of course SU was very out of position and Barbarossa has destroyed 3(?) fact already and gained Moscow in just a 2 or 3 turns while causing truly massive casualties to the Red Army. So again a job well done by Axis.

I can say that in my games as allies I've never lost China but in this game China is basically lost. They have Kunming but the rail line to send a res there is cut and the chicom are about to face big problems in the north. So Japan is also doing very well and will soon accomplish not only recovery of the part of Manchuria that it lost but take most of Siberia in time to turn attention to CW/US.

Since I feel game is done and Axis have indicated surrender is fine I am dropping from the game.

Petteri feels that he can continue to play this one to amuse Axis as long as they are enjoying it so I wish him the best of luck. Maybe in future we will team up in a game with 2D10 and he can play western allies in Europe which is very time-consuming while I can take a lighter responsibility.

Sorry to readers that we could not provide a competitive game. I know from reading many AAR's over the years that reading an AAR like this is not as satisfying as reading an AAR where the tide ebbs and flows and there is mystery over the final outcome. :(

(in reply to jjdenver)
Post #: 1536
RE: 4 player game - 4/13/2019 8:59:18 PM   
Admiral Delabroglio


Posts: 84
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline
Thanks for the AAR. I'll be following the next one.
In J/A 1941, the situation indeed looked bleak for the Allies. Maybe bad weather in S/O could save them.
However, id did not significantly hinder Germany during the first turn of the war against the USSR, and even helped with those annoying marsh hexes.

Best regards

_____________________________

Admiral Delabroglio

(in reply to jjdenver)
Post #: 1537
Page:   <<   < prev  48 49 50 51 [52]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> After Action Report >> RE: 4 player game Page: <<   < prev  48 49 50 51 [52]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.113