Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Remarkable game. Comments and questions from another new player.

 
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 >> Remarkable game. Comments and questions from another new player. Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Remarkable game. Comments and questions from another n... - 12/22/2018 4:55:47 PM   
jwarrenw13

 

Posts: 1298
Joined: 8/12/2000
From: Monroe, LA, USA
Status: online
Hi. I decided to write a long version instead of a short version, so indulge me, or if you get bored, that's okay.

To introduce myself, I've played wargames since I bought about 200 little 1-inch tall soldiers when I was a kid and recreated battles I read about in books on my bedroom floor, American Civil War, Napoleon, WWII mostly. I then graduated to Avalon Hill board games and then finally to computer games. I'm a retired US Army Reserve officer and currently teach (American) English at a US high school. I teach senior English, grade 12, which is actually British literature. Our curriculum focuses on Beowulf, The Canterbury Tales, and Hamlet, along with and other odds and ends of British lit.

I decided during the holiday sale to go ahead and buy World In Flames. I've been watching the forum for years, but I always decided not to get WIF because of the lack of AI. I play entirely solitaire (No, don't try to convince me otherwise. Yes, I know that there is nothing better than a human opponent. I've heard that dozens of times. But I'm not changing. I'm 100% solitaire.) -- and the lack of an AI turned me off. However, I got to thinking about how much I used to enjoy playing board games solitaire, and during the sale I decided to buy WIF, knowing that there would be a learning curve. But I also remembered how part of the fun with the old board games for me was simply learning the rules. So I decided to try an experiment with WIF and see if I could recapture some of that odd kind of fun. And it worked.

MWIF is a truly remarkable Achievement.. I won't say any more along those lines. It just is.

As to the game, I've gone through all the rules tutorials of all types, with the exception to this point of tutorial videos 13 and 14. I decided they could wait until I try a full map game. I just finished my first game of Barbarossa, playing with the Novice optional rules set. I won a brilliant victory as the USSR and suffered a disastrous loss as Germany. After a great start, Army Group South was stopped just short of Kiev and never captured Odessa. Army Group Center was doing well until the unfortunate occurrence with Army Group North. Army Group North was virtually destroyed in one turn, including the loss of its headquarters unit, after becoming overextended and nevertheless making what became a series of disastrous low odds attacks, after which the USSR counterattacked and wrecked AGN and caved in the flank of AGC. From that point I was on the defensive as Germany except in the south. Well, I didn't really have a clear division between AGN and AGC, but that gives you a general picture of what happened.

Now some comments and questions.

1. Where can I find the best examples of how to engage in an offensive such as what the Germans have to undertake in Barbarossa? The ground game plays quite differently than say WITE and the Decisive Campaigns series. I realize I have to take a much better look at attack odds, at phasing my units so I will have followup units available for the second impulse and so on, air support, and other factors including supply. It was comparatively easy to play the USSR in Barbarossa, at least for me against an inept opponent, me. I just had to position units to try to maintain something of a line and make a few counterattacks when the opportunity arose. But I realize now I had no idea how to undertake the offensive needed to win as Germany. So is there a video or AAR or something that would give me a really good tutorial in how to attempt to win in Barbarossa as Germany?

2. Disorganization. I think in the tutorials that the whole idea of the effects of disorganization is understated. In fact, I might suggest a mini-tutorial just on disorganization in land combat, something called Disorganization for Dummies. Where is my best source for reading about disorganization? Is the rule book the best place?

3. And is there a way to return all air units from whence they came with one command rather than going through each air unit individually. I know that sometimes that is not the best practice for returning air units, but sometimes that works just fine, and being able to do it with one command would be nice.

I actually think I understand the game in very simple, general terms now, and am going to undertake another Barbarossa campaign and try to make a better showing as Germany. But some advice would be appreciated.
Post #: 1
RE: Remarkable game. Comments and questions from anoth... - 12/22/2018 5:51:08 PM   
paulderynck


Posts: 7675
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline
Good luck with your progress toward enjoying the computer rendition of one of the best boardgames ever published.

1. There is an AAR sub-forum with many games posted. Likely most are Global War but there may be some Barbs there too. But many of the global war AARs could be skimmed to where Barb begins. You may want to set the top right filter on the forums to "all topics" as there are many, many more AARs then it even appears there are.

In general, many players use the German offensive chit in the first impulse against the USSR to call a "super-Combined" action (i.e. a land, naval and air action without any action limits) to fly as many ground strike missions as they can in order to disorganize the Russians and then attack the weakest units so then the remaining disorganized ones can be chewed up subsequently. They then re-org their best planes, and stage their FTR forward, and are careful to leave some HQs that can still advance and keep their spearheads in supply and later re-org them after a bad attack roll.

2. It is a critical game concept and its effects will kill any offensive if it happens en masse. It is also key to destroying defenders, especially if they are out of supply (OoS) or can be put OoS. The rulebook tells you about disorganization effects. The antidote is to re-organize units, but this in turn disorganizes HQs, so an attacker must always go for high odds attacks except for nearing the end of a turn or on a risk-reward proposition.

3. I don't know of such a command and as you gain experience, you won't miss it as much, since planes can't rebase forward when disorganized, so returning from a mission is your best choice short of burning an HQ to re-org them.

PS: Regarding game play and on the mechanics of MWiF, this is a good forum. There's also discussion groups for WiF on Yahoo Groups and on Boardgamegeek.


< Message edited by paulderynck -- 12/22/2018 5:53:26 PM >


_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to jwarrenw13)
Post #: 2
RE: Remarkable game. Comments and questions from anoth... - 12/22/2018 6:28:29 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 14354
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

Good luck with your progress toward enjoying the computer rendition of one of the best boardgames ever published.

+1

Two resources I'd highly recommend to learn the ins and outs of the game are:

(1) Player's Manual Vol 1, Section 3.

(2) http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1555915 (which provides links to "AI discussions" for most countries).


_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to paulderynck)
Post #: 3
RE: Remarkable game. Comments and questions from anoth... - 12/22/2018 8:20:53 PM   
Centuur


Posts: 8056
Joined: 6/3/2011
From: Hoorn (NED).
Status: offline
In the Barbarossa scenario, new players often think that Germany has so many more assets, that you can attack on the whole front line. This is a mistake. Choose either the southern or northern front for your main attack and set up your units accordingly.

As Paul already mentioned, the use of the offensive chit in the first impulse using a supercombined can come in very handy. Also: ground strike early in the turn, mop them up later in the turn. Nothing better than having lets say four or five adjacent hexes full of disorganised units, attack one or two hexes and put the rest out of supply...

_____________________________

Peter

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 4
RE: Remarkable game. Comments and questions from anoth... - 12/23/2018 3:24:08 AM   
brian brian

 

Posts: 2914
Joined: 11/16/2005
Status: online
Welcome aboard!

re: Disorganized units - keep in mind how the die mods in land combat work (+1 on 1d10, +2 on 2d10). This is easiest to see on the 1d10 combat chart. Look at the results 1-10, and then look at the results 2-11 - they mostly exactly match the next odds column up. With 2d10, every +2 to the roll is the same as an attacker:defender factors based odds level.

And then for air units, keep something else in mind. If you have a 5 point Stuka and you want to attack a 5 point enemy land unit, a Ground Strike mission on it is a waste of an air mission, as it would have only a 50% chance of disorganizing the unit. Whereas using the 5 tactical factors on the Stuka as Ground Support would both save a precious air mission (flying Ground Support is 'free' as it were), and automatically get the same result as disorganizing the ground unit, as every 5 factors that attacks it raises the odds one level - same as +1 on the 1d10 land combat dice.

Now, what if there are a pair of 5 factor enemy defenders in a stack and you still have a 5 point Stuka to use against it? A Ground Support mission would get you an automatic +1 on 2d10, or contribute one half of an odds level on 1d10. But a Ground Strike mission on the enemy stack would have a 25% chance of total failure, a 50% chance of disorganizing one unit, and a 25% chance of disorganizing both enemy units (gaining 2 odds levels). I hope I did the super basic probability math correctly, there.


With the basic start of the Barbarossa scenario with all those Russian units sitting there in range of your bombers, and the Surprise rules, the use of the Luftwaffe on the first impulse is very important. A Super Combined Impulse via an Offensive Chit is one good way to go. I have been wanting to experiment with an Air impulse, and then re-organizing the 3 Stukas and the best LND3 with Rundstedt, thus saving the chit (and the Stukas) for later use. But if the first turn went very long and sunny, I would probably regret having the HQ-A stuck on the Polish border for the rest of the turn. Haven't gotten around to trying that yet.

(in reply to Centuur)
Post #: 5
RE: Remarkable game. Comments and questions from anoth... - 12/23/2018 4:23:02 AM   
paulderynck


Posts: 7675
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline
A super-combined in MWiF (which uses WiF Rules As Written vers. 7 or "RAW7") leaves some players wondering if the Naval portion is wasted. But in fact you can get an AMPH and TRS out to re-org two air units without using an HQ, plus have some naval units to provide shore bombardment, and using the SCS transport option, make some automatic Div size invasions in the Baltic States.

But in the newly released Collectors Edition of the boardgame (which uses RAW8), a player might rather call a Land-Air using less than 15 O-Points (which replace Offensive Chits).

_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to brian brian)
Post #: 6
RE: Remarkable game. Comments and questions from anoth... - 12/23/2018 5:39:15 PM   
jwarrenw13

 

Posts: 1298
Joined: 8/12/2000
From: Monroe, LA, USA
Status: online
Thanks for all the advice. After my first game and after reading your advice, I took a much closer look at supply rules. I made a lot of mistakes in my first game there. I also took a closer look at disorganization and reorganization rules. And use of aircraft in ground strike and ground support mode. And I took a close look at the combat results table, though typically I prefer to play by feel rather than counting numbers (Playing solitaire or against an AI, that just tends to kind of level things out.). And finally I used the offensive chit combined mode super-offensive on turn one. The result is that in the first turn of my second Barbarossa game I am doing much better. AGN is two hexes from Leningrad. In the center I am adjacent to Vitebsk and Minsk. Going is slower in the south, but I have taken Lvov and decimated the Soviet forces with more careful attacks. Of course the opponent is me, so take all that with a grain of salt, but the USSR is starting to move follow-on forces up to start delaying the Germans. But I don't see any opportunity for counterattacks in turn two, just an attempt to delay.

One thing I have learned from my first game and a couple of experiments in this game is that low odds attacks (2-1 or lower) are very risky, and you can lose a couple of units very quickly. And the land combat results can be very bloody for both sides. New players should learn that fast. The results remind me of the old standard Avalon Hill CRT.

I still think it will be hard to meet the victory conditions set for Germany for the scenario, but I feel much better about conducting an offensive than after game one. I think I will finish this game out and then play Guadalcanal a couple of times and start a full game. Thanks again for the advice. I will continue to ask questions.

(in reply to paulderynck)
Post #: 7
RE: Remarkable game. Comments and questions from anoth... - 12/26/2018 7:35:37 AM   
Joseignacio


Posts: 1939
Joined: 5/8/2009
From: Madrid, Spain
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwarrenw13

Thanks for all the advice. After my first game and after reading your advice, I took a much closer look at supply rules. I made a lot of mistakes in my first game there. I also took a closer look at disorganization and reorganization rules. And use of aircraft in ground strike and ground support mode. And I took a close look at the combat results table, though typically I prefer to play by feel rather than counting numbers (Playing solitaire or against an AI, that just tends to kind of level things out.). And finally I used the offensive chit combined mode super-offensive on turn one. The result is that in the first turn of my second Barbarossa game I am doing much better. AGN is two hexes from Leningrad. In the center I am adjacent to Vitebsk and Minsk. Going is slower in the south, but I have taken Lvov and decimated the Soviet forces with more careful attacks. Of course the opponent is me, so take all that with a grain of salt, but the USSR is starting to move follow-on forces up to start delaying the Germans. But I don't see any opportunity for counterattacks in turn two, just an attempt to delay.

One thing I have learned from my first game and a couple of experiments in this game is that low odds attacks (2-1 or lower) are very risky, and you can lose a couple of units very quickly.
And the land combat results can be very bloody for both sides. New players should learn that fast. The results remind me of the old standard Avalon Hill CRT.

I still think it will be hard to meet the victory conditions set for Germany for the scenario, but I feel much better about conducting an offensive than after game one. I think I will finish this game out and then play Guadalcanal a couple of times and start a full game. Thanks again for the advice. I will continue to ask questions.


Not only you can lose a couple of units easily but you can also get disorganized with all your attackers and, thus, end your offensive. And if you are really unlucky or inexperienced you might also be unsupplied (which could result in a couple of armored corps (unsupplied, unorganized) killed easily even by a couple of militia units in good shape.

I would disagree thyat 2:1 is risky, I would classify it between risky and suicidal. Even if you can win, you'll lose too much and disorganize yourself easily.

I consider 5:1 is reasonable, 4:1 risky (depends also if you are using a 1d10 table or the one I prefer 2d10), I would only make 4:1 or 3:1 attacks at the end of the turn, so that it's not so dangerous to get unsupplied or where the enemy is too weak for a counteroffensive or your units simply cannot be OOS, provided that I have one or more rusty units I can go on without.

(in reply to jwarrenw13)
Post #: 8
RE: Remarkable game. Comments and questions from anoth... - 12/26/2018 11:59:29 AM   
Centuur


Posts: 8056
Joined: 6/3/2011
From: Hoorn (NED).
Status: offline
I don't agree totally with José here. There is a golden rule in the board game and that is the following: "if you can't deal with the worst result possible, don't attack".

If one can handle losses, go ahead and attack. But be aware of the risks one is taking at that point.
If one has f.e. the Soviet army hammering on the Germans in 1944, it usually has a huge amount of cheap MIL units available to take losses and a closed frontline two hexes wide. So go ahead and attack. No problem since the Soviets can handle the losses. It's the Germans who can't at that stage...

And there are a couple of other situations where one has to attack at low odds, hope to kill one of the defenders, reorganise the army and go again next turn at better odds. Places like Leningrad or Gibraltar can often only be taken that way...


< Message edited by Centuur -- 12/26/2018 12:00:32 PM >


_____________________________

Peter

(in reply to Joseignacio)
Post #: 9
RE: Remarkable game. Comments and questions from anoth... - 12/26/2018 4:12:16 PM   
jwarrenw13

 

Posts: 1298
Joined: 8/12/2000
From: Monroe, LA, USA
Status: online
Finished game two of Barbarossa. Final score Germans 18, USSR 27. Barbarossa is based entirely on objective hexes. Obviously still made a lot of mistakes and learned a lot but feel better about conducting offensives. Something close to a draw is what I might hope to get playing against myself. As the USSR I mainly just tried to bring up units and put them in front of the Germans to slow them down, while defending some objective hexes. Picture is situation at the beginning of turn five, the last turn. The Germans didn't make much progress in turn five, so things looked just about like that at the end of the game. Among other things, bad weather. I used the quick start setup for the game. I did take Leningrad but lost several units doing it.

Now on to Guadalcanal. There are a couple of AARs or partial AARs in the early pages of the AAR section which I've already reviewed. I feel completely lost again looking at conducting sea actions and will start with the Japanese taking Guadalcanal, mainly because it is what they actually did and because I'm not sure what else to do, as one of the AAR players noted Thanks again for comments.








Attachment (1)

(in reply to jwarrenw13)
Post #: 10
RE: Remarkable game. Comments and questions from anoth... - 12/27/2018 7:10:14 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 21384
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline
When conducting ground strikes during the first impulse of the game, spreading them out with one air unit per hex is my advice. Of course you should prefer hexes with the most enemy units as your targets.

My reasoning is that you do not have to disorganize every enemy unit in a hex. If you get just one, the enemy player will have to decide whether to:
1 - leave more units in the hex to beef up its defensive factors, or
2 - abandon the disorganized unit to its fate.

The latter can often include being put out of supply and reduced to 1 or 3 combat factors.

---

Ground strikes should be done by the tactical bombers with the largest combat factors. Ground support can be done by groups of air units. So, a 5 factor tactical bomber should do a ground strike and two weaker bombers (say, 2 and 3 factors) can do ground support. The other benefit to this division of labor is that ground support missions do not count towards air mission activity limits.

---

Moving air units forward during an offensive can be very difficult due to air mission limits. You need to keep the fighters close to cover the HQs and protect them from enemy ground strikes. 2 ground strikes and 2 air rebases is my general rule of thumb. But I warn you in advance, that requires a lot of discipline to stick to.

Once the impulse number gets high and the turn is likely to end, sending fighters in as part of ground strikes and/or ground support, even when they aren't needed, can serve as pseudo-air rebases.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to jwarrenw13)
Post #: 11
RE: Remarkable game. Comments and questions from anoth... - 12/29/2018 5:27:07 AM   
jwarrenw13

 

Posts: 1298
Joined: 8/12/2000
From: Monroe, LA, USA
Status: online
Advice to any other new players before trying the Guadalcanal scenario. Read Picture and Text tutorial #5 again and do Interactive tutorials 17 and 18 again. Watch Video tutorials 10 and 11 again. That is, do all the naval tutorials again. Also go to the AAR section here and find the two Guadalcanal partial tutorials on page 4 and review them for some good info. I loaded the Guadalcanal quick start a couple of days ago and realized I had no idea how to even start even though I had done all the tutorials. So I went through them again and then, following some advice above, I found the Guadalcanal AARs and reviewed them. I was then able to successfully execute the first impulse of turn one for each player, "successfully" meaning I did SOMETHING. For the Japanese, I followed the lead of one of the AARs, split my naval force in Singapore, and landed an SNLF unit to seize Guadalcanal from a fleet I placed in the Coral Sea, while sending another force to the Bay of Bengal to challenge the Commonwealth. As the Commonwealth, I came out to fight and then aborted after having a carrier damaged in round one of a naval air action. As the US, I brought the carrier and battleships from Baltimore to the Pacific and staged a carrier raid from Hawaii against a small Japanese fleet already at sea. That was successful, and the Japanese aborted after one round of air combat that damaged a Japanese carrier. I could have continued both of those naval battles but did what I think a player would normally do in those situations by aborting. I stopped for the night at that point. Those were not necessarily the best moves and not necessarily recommended, but I gained confidence by conducting naval operations. This is just a fascinating game. I plan to play the Guadalcanal scenario to the end -- five turns -- and then start a full campaign. I hope what I wrote might help another new player at some point, that and the advice I've been given in this thread.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 12
RE: Remarkable game. Comments and questions from anoth... - 12/29/2018 6:00:58 AM   
juntoalmar


Posts: 483
Joined: 9/29/2013
From: Valencia
Status: offline
quote:

jwarrenw13


My advise is: ignore everything from the manual and tutorials until you need it (don't read the whole manual and watch all the tutorials when you start learning).
- Start a Barbarrossa.
- Read only (and watch the tutorials) about land rules first. Movement, supply, land combat, disorganization, weather effects, etc. Ignore everything else.
- Then play a couple of impulses until you feel confident. If you have any trouble, there just a small part of the manual to check.
- Follow the same procedure for air rules and play a couple of impulses with airplanes.
- Then production (which will be pretty basic, without convoys)
- Do a Guadalcanal scenario reading the naval rules
- Start a global war and read each section when needed (US Entry, Vichy, breaking pacts, etc...)

I think that's the best way of learning, and not too complex. I find unrealistic to think that a new player will read the whole manual and remember how the US entry work when he needs it (probably a few months later, at least!)

I hope my own experience helps someone starting.

@jwarrenw13 welcome to this fascinating game.

_____________________________

(my humble blog about wargames, in spanish) http://cabezadepuente.blogspot.com.es/

(in reply to jwarrenw13)
Post #: 13
RE: Remarkable game. Comments and questions from anoth... - 12/29/2018 5:37:07 PM   
jwarrenw13

 

Posts: 1298
Joined: 8/12/2000
From: Monroe, LA, USA
Status: online
I agree now, lol. I did all the tutorials and videos first -- except the last two videos on production planning, which total about 2:30 in time and I realized I would not need until I tried a full game. I realize now I would have done better to start learning in the sequence you laid out. As I noted, I had to go back and do all the naval tutorials again before starting my Guadalcanal game. Your advice would work well for any new player. I would add to watch closely for any mention of disorganization. To this point I think it is the one key element of the game that the tutorials don't do a good job of clearly explaining in one place. Of course there is still so much of the game I don't know.

(in reply to juntoalmar)
Post #: 14
RE: Remarkable game. Comments and questions from anoth... - 12/29/2018 7:14:58 PM   
brian brian

 

Posts: 2914
Joined: 11/16/2005
Status: online
I think you figured out an easy approach to learning the game. Just dive in and attempt as best you can to re-create the historical choices. And for the Guadalcanal scenario, read the Victory Conditions first, then set up the scenario, then read the Victory Conditions again, then play the first turn, then read the Victory Conditions, again. Ultimately, in all games, you are attempting to satisfy the Victory Conditions to win the game. Some players are more content to attempt to re-create the actual history for some reason, and somewhat fail to launch when it comes to figuring out how to win the game. But for learning the game, a basic re-creation of history is an ideal way to go.

It is one thing to learn how the rules and counters fit together. I have seen players get those basics figured out, but then just about freeze when it finally comes time for them to tell the counters what to actually _do_. This is particularly true for a country on "Offense" but sometimes also for a country on "Defense" and suddenly the pixels or cardboard are more precious than they were to real human commanders and force protection becomes the only motivating factor - but I have to do this, or I might lose that piece!

Once you have seen how a decision, and then the rules and then the dice ultimately impact the pieces you command, then it becomes much easier to take risks and make decisions different than the historical ones.

(in reply to jwarrenw13)
Post #: 15
RE: Remarkable game. Comments and questions from anoth... - 12/29/2018 7:24:18 PM   
paulderynck


Posts: 7675
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline
"...and suddenly the pixels or cardboard are more precious than they were to real human commanders and force protection becomes the only motivating factor - but I have to do this, or I might lose that piece! "

But eventually you'll happily sacrifice units when needed, blithely disregarding the lives they represent. A wargamer buddy of mine said wargamer purgatory probably consists of experiencing each death you've simulated. Many of us could be in purgatory for thousands of years...

_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to brian brian)
Post #: 16
RE: Remarkable game. Comments and questions from anoth... - 12/29/2018 8:44:28 PM   
jwarrenw13

 

Posts: 1298
Joined: 8/12/2000
From: Monroe, LA, USA
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian

I think you figured out an easy approach to learning the game. Just dive in and attempt as best you can to re-create the historical choices. And for the Guadalcanal scenario, read the Victory Conditions first, then set up the scenario, then read the Victory Conditions again, then play the first turn, then read the Victory Conditions, again. Ultimately, in all games, you are attempting to satisfy the Victory Conditions to win the game. Some players are more content to attempt to re-create the actual history for some reason, and somewhat fail to launch when it comes to figuring out how to win the game. But for learning the game, a basic re-creation of history is an ideal way to go.

It is one thing to learn how the rules and counters fit together. I have seen players get those basics figured out, but then just about freeze when it finally comes time for them to tell the counters what to actually _do_. This is particularly true for a country on "Offense" but sometimes also for a country on "Defense" and suddenly the pixels or cardboard are more precious than they were to real human commanders and force protection becomes the only motivating factor - but I have to do this, or I might lose that piece!

Once you have seen how a decision, and then the rules and then the dice ultimately impact the pieces you command, then it becomes much easier to take risks and make decisions different than the historical ones.


Honestly for my first impulses I started by following this AAR:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3598648

I mirrored his moves for the Japanese and then started deviating for the CW and US. It was a big help. Thus as the Japanese I took Guadalcanal even though it is not an objective, just to get the game going. And the writer of the AAR said he did the same thing. I decided as you mentioned to look at the objectives again after my first moves, though for this game I am more interested in just learning how to do things than anything else. And this scenario is interesting because you get points for destroyed CVs as well as objective hexes.

This partial AAR/explanation also helped a lot.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3598648

I think these are the only two Guadalcanal AARs on the forum, for new players.

Right now I am looking through some rules again before trying my second impulse of turn one with all the combatants. Just learning the game is a ball of fun, at least for me.


(in reply to brian brian)
Post #: 17
RE: Remarkable game. Comments and questions from anoth... - 12/30/2018 12:37:48 AM   
brian brian

 

Posts: 2914
Joined: 11/16/2005
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

"...and suddenly the pixels or cardboard are more precious than they were to real human commanders and force protection becomes the only motivating factor - but I have to do this, or I might lose that piece! "

But eventually you'll happily sacrifice units when needed, blithely disregarding the lives they represent. A wargamer buddy of mine said wargamer purgatory probably consists of experiencing each death you've simulated. Many of us could be in purgatory for thousands of years...


That's entirely true. I play the CW particularly maniacally, more like Stalin - Churchill's rough patch in last year's movie "Darkest Hour" with the one garrison in Calais - has nothing on my CW orders. Maybe I am exploring what would have happened if Mosley had somehow become PM of the UK, and decided he could vanquish Hitler and pick up some new colonies along the way, or something..

But then this is a standard theme in the memoirs of military &/or political commanders throughout history; the difficulty in ordering other men to risk their lives, and learning to overcome the basic impulse to not do that, in the pursuit of a greater good (winning the particular battle, to win the war; or losing in one battle, to support the chance of winning elsewhere - i.e. ordering a diversionary attack, for example).

At least, in humanistic societies that we enjoy living in. Obviously, history is littered with commanders who never had any hesitancy about those types of orders. I suspect they would start out a little better at winning the 'game'.

And in many games, casualties do matter. But not in 'Global War' World in Flames - only in the intro scenarios.



Speaking of which, the CV loss portion of Guadalcanal has to be integrated with the other parts of the Victory Conditions, by the player. If the other player refuses to risk their CVs, you can't win by sinking them, unless you boldly sail up and try to Port Strike them or something. So strategy becomes an attempt to achieve the other Victory Cs, which both requires risking your CVs - & forcing the other player to risk theirs. Then operational tactics come in to play, and the game is on.

A bit different than a campaign game of WiF, where the IJN or the USN might never offer battle through the middle of the game.

(in reply to paulderynck)
Post #: 18
RE: Remarkable game. Comments and questions from anoth... - 12/30/2018 10:19:11 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 14354
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: jwarrenw13


Honestly for my first impulses I started by following this AAR:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3598648

I mirrored his moves for the Japanese and then started deviating for the CW and US. It was a big help. Thus as the Japanese I took Guadalcanal even though it is not an objective, just to get the game going. And the writer of the AAR said he did the same thing. I decided as you mentioned to look at the objectives again after my first moves, though for this game I am more interested in just learning how to do things than anything else. And this scenario is interesting because you get points for destroyed CVs as well as objective hexes.

Oh man, I've learned so much since doing that AAR! I can't believe I was invading from the 1(sea)-box. When I started that AAR I had no clue what the different sea boxes meant. But you know what, I had a blast learning and playing, and I'm still having a blast learning and playing. I did try my hand at "competitive" play against two wonderful and really talented human players and got blasted both times (actually three game ... mirror games against one). However, I find myself always gravitating back to solo play because of the freedom to play when and how I want. That doesn't mean someday I won't try competitive play again, but for now I continue to play solo.

If you enjoy strategic WW2 games then I'd say there's no better one that (M)WiF from the perspective of: (1) fun, (2) playability, (3) (re)playability and (4) historical accuracy (including alternate history realism).

My advice to learning and enjoying this game is don't be afraid to jump in and tackle it, even giving the global war scenario a try (if you have such an interest) after you've played through the Barbarossa and Guadalcanal scenarios. Especially when it comes to the Global War Scenario, you'll make mistakes so don't be afraid to call a game honked up and start over.

With respect to strategic strategies and tactics, I've found that those strategies and tactics that were sound historically are generally sound in MWiF and those that were unsound historically generally result in "disasters" in MWiF.

For example, it's been pointed out to me more than once by experienced MWiF players that it's better when defending a long front (e.g., Eastern Front), to have stacks of 2 to 3 units in alternate hexes (i.e., empty hex between stacks) than to have a continuous line of single units. This strategic tactic actually has historical validity. This past fall I finished a book by Hermann Balck, "Order in Chaos: The Memoirs of General of Panzer Troops Hermann Balck". During the war he rose from commander of a mechanized regiment to an Army Group commander. A significant amount of his command was on the Eastern Front. One axiom stated over and over by him in his Memoirs is that when on defense it was better to maintain a concentration of forces and use those forces to launch timely counterattacks than to spread them out and see them destroyed by superior forces.

Anyway ... go gaming and enjoy!

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to jwarrenw13)
Post #: 19
RE: Remarkable game. Comments and questions from anoth... - 12/31/2018 5:00:31 AM   
jwarrenw13

 

Posts: 1298
Joined: 8/12/2000
From: Monroe, LA, USA
Status: online
I finished the Guadalcanal scenario, which I started with help from your AAR. The Allies won 42-20 over the Japanese, but I realized near the end that I had made a terrible mistake and misread the rule about convoy points for this scenario. It goes like this:

Each player gains the following victory points at the end of the game:
• 5 for each friendly controlled objective hex that was enemy controlled at the start of the game (and 0 for
any others).
• 4 for each enemy CV destroyed.
• The US/CW/France player scores victory points, if at the end of a turn there are less than 5 Japanese
convoys in the China Sea or South China Sea. The Allies receive VP equal to the number of convoys less
than 5 there are in each sea area each turn.
• 2 for each friendly controlled oil resource point that was enemy controlled at the start of the game.
• 1 for each other friendly controlled resource point that was enemy controlled at the start of the game.

Somehow I skimmed that rule at least twice and thought the Allies only got points if no Japanese convoys were in those two areas. When I checked VP -- after three turns, sorry -- I knew something was odd and saw my mistake.

I had not even considered the number of convoy points per sea area. I was keeping one point in the China Sea and S. China Sea and a couple of other areas and 20 points in one area. I think the Japanese gave the Allies at least 8 points a turn for 3 turns because I neglected as the Japanese to put at least 5 convoy points in those two areas. So I think the Japanese actually won on CV destruction points though I didn't keep a tally of destroyed CVs.

In the game, instead of playing for the scenario victory locations, which were really rather awkward for the Japanese, I just decided to play for Guadalcanal, which counts no points, and to try to take Ceylon, which was a Japanese objective, though defended by a large CW fleet based in India. I ended up with a series of actions around Guadalcanal and the Indian Ocean. The Japanese took and kept Guadalcanal and the CW held Ceylon. The Japanese also tried to take Dutch Harbor with a small force and failed. I just tried to learn a lot about conducting naval warfare and had a great deal of fun. I learned, among other things, that just as happened historically, carriers can get used up really fast in carrier battles, and you really need to think about how you employ them.

Now some more reading and video watching and I will attempt Global War.


(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 20
RE: Remarkable game. Comments and questions from anoth... - 12/31/2018 5:37:50 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 14354
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwarrenw13

I finished the Guadalcanal scenario, which I started with help from your AAR. The Allies won 42-20 over the Japanese, but I realized near the end that I had made a terrible mistake and misread the rule about convoy points for this scenario. It goes like this:

Each player gains the following victory points at the end of the game:
• 5 for each friendly controlled objective hex that was enemy controlled at the start of the game (and 0 for
any others).
• 4 for each enemy CV destroyed.
• The US/CW/France player scores victory points, if at the end of a turn there are less than 5 Japanese
convoys in the China Sea or South China Sea. The Allies receive VP equal to the number of convoys less
than 5 there are in each sea area each turn.
• 2 for each friendly controlled oil resource point that was enemy controlled at the start of the game.
• 1 for each other friendly controlled resource point that was enemy controlled at the start of the game.

Somehow I skimmed that rule at least twice and thought the Allies only got points if no Japanese convoys were in those two areas. When I checked VP -- after three turns, sorry -- I knew something was odd and saw my mistake.

I had not even considered the number of convoy points per sea area. I was keeping one point in the China Sea and S. China Sea and a couple of other areas and 20 points in one area. I think the Japanese gave the Allies at least 8 points a turn for 3 turns because I neglected as the Japanese to put at least 5 convoy points in those two areas. So I think the Japanese actually won on CV destruction points though I didn't keep a tally of destroyed CVs.

In the game, instead of playing for the scenario victory locations, which were really rather awkward for the Japanese, I just decided to play for Guadalcanal, which counts no points, and to try to take Ceylon, which was a Japanese objective, though defended by a large CW fleet based in India. I ended up with a series of actions around Guadalcanal and the Indian Ocean. The Japanese took and kept Guadalcanal and the CW held Ceylon. The Japanese also tried to take Dutch Harbor with a small force and failed. I just tried to learn a lot about conducting naval warfare and had a great deal of fun. I learned, among other things, that just as happened historically, carriers can get used up really fast in carrier battles, and you really need to think about how you employ them.

Now some more reading and video watching and I will attempt Global War.


Sounds like you had fun, which is the most important reason that I game. By the way, don't be afraid to post an AAR, if you're so inclined. I found that's a fantastic way to get quality feedback and better learn tactics, strategies and game mechanics. Though, doing so probably doubles or even triples the time it take to play through a scenario.

I'm having a debate at this very moment with myself (can't tell I do a lot solo play can you ) whether or not to post another global war AAR, but I fear my AAR's are getting stale and boring to the community.

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to jwarrenw13)
Post #: 21
RE: Remarkable game. Comments and questions from anoth... - 1/3/2019 9:27:50 PM   
jwarrenw13

 

Posts: 1298
Joined: 8/12/2000
From: Monroe, LA, USA
Status: online
Some more thoughts for other new players. Might help you along the path I'm taking. I did the following starting Global War:

1. Came up with a list of options I wanted to play, based on the Standard Set of options but without pilots and without oil rules.

2. For setup I used the convoy setups that are used in the quick start for Global War, since convoys are still a weak point for me. I did screenshots of each nation's convoy setups so I could copy them in my game. The rest of the setup I did on my own.

3. I ran the first impulse, doing nothing for anyone except Japan, which ran an attack on the the Chinese, and Germany, which of course attacked Poland. I stopped after the first impulse because I had botched the attack and failed to capture Warsaw due to some stupid I mean basic mistakes.

4. I went back to the start of the first impulse and ran through an entire turn, again with Japan making land attacks in China and Germany this time easily conquering Poland.

5. I stopped there. I took note of all the things that confused me or I was clueless about and am going to now go back and start over and play turn one again while reading the help sections and rules manual about anything I'm confused about while having the other nations start taking some conservative actions.

And to me, that is fun.

I'm also looking at the strategy suggestions that I found here:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3472975

And a couple of questions:

1. Is there a video of a playthrough of turn one anywhere? I couldn't find one?

2. What would you recommend as the best AAR showing in detail a rather standard turn one of Global War? I've been looking at AARs and see some really great and helpful AARs and interesting strategies but actually want to play turn one rather conservatively for my own purposes.

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 22
RE: Remarkable game. Comments and questions from anoth... - 1/4/2019 12:43:14 PM   
Centuur


Posts: 8056
Joined: 6/3/2011
From: Hoorn (NED).
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwarrenw13

Some more thoughts for other new players. Might help you along the path I'm taking. I did the following starting Global War:

1. Came up with a list of options I wanted to play, based on the Standard Set of options but without pilots and without oil rules.

2. For setup I used the convoy setups that are used in the quick start for Global War, since convoys are still a weak point for me. I did screenshots of each nation's convoy setups so I could copy them in my game. The rest of the setup I did on my own.

3. I ran the first impulse, doing nothing for anyone except Japan, which ran an attack on the the Chinese, and Germany, which of course attacked Poland. I stopped after the first impulse because I had botched the attack and failed to capture Warsaw due to some stupid I mean basic mistakes.

4. I went back to the start of the first impulse and ran through an entire turn, again with Japan making land attacks in China and Germany this time easily conquering Poland.

5. I stopped there. I took note of all the things that confused me or I was clueless about and am going to now go back and start over and play turn one again while reading the help sections and rules manual about anything I'm confused about while having the other nations start taking some conservative actions.

And to me, that is fun.

I'm also looking at the strategy suggestions that I found here:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3472975

And a couple of questions:

1. Is there a video of a playthrough of turn one anywhere? I couldn't find one?

2. What would you recommend as the best AAR showing in detail a rather standard turn one of Global War? I've been looking at AARs and see some really great and helpful AARs and interesting strategies but actually want to play turn one rather conservatively for my own purposes.



I think I did pretty good in the AAR I made...

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3514454&mpage=2&key=

_____________________________

Peter

(in reply to jwarrenw13)
Post #: 23
RE: Remarkable game. Comments and questions from anoth... - 1/4/2019 4:39:34 PM   
jwarrenw13

 

Posts: 1298
Joined: 8/12/2000
From: Monroe, LA, USA
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Centuur



I think I did pretty good in the AAR I made...

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3514454&mpage=2&key=


Thanks. I just took a look at that and will have to look at it some more.

I started a new game, for convenience using the quick start save, and decided to stick with this one and play it through. I know I lose a lot of options that way, but for me better to minimize the optional rules and just learn to play the basic game.

I played through the 1939 turns. The Germans took Poland on their first impulse and then proceeded to take Denmark. In the Nov/Dec turn they conquered Netherlands and declared war on Norway. They (I) botched the transport and couldn't get that executed, but I am in position to proceed in the next turn. Probably a diversion I shouldn't do, but I want to just do it for the sake of practice if nothing else. I plan to declare war on Belgium and go ahead and go all in against France next turn.

I landed a British force in France, but I failed to do much else with the CW. And I failed to do enough with Italy. Basically I have entered into a gentleman's agreement with myself to not take advantage of dumb mistakes I make with one side and allow myself to correct my mistakes. For example, I am not going to let the Axis take advantage of the fact that I failed to add any troops to Gibraltar or Egypt yet.

USSR and Germany are just going to remain neutral with each other and leave each other alone for now.

The US is just passing for now while playing some entry options like taking control of Greenland and Iceland while I get a handle on what that is all about.

Japan and China. That is where I'm really confused. The war there seems to be a stalemate or comedy of errors. But then I look at your AAR and I find you in roughly the same situation I'm in. I have slowly advanced as the Japanese and attacked when the odds are good. As the Chinese I've defended but advanced when I can do so without fighting. I keep wondering when the Japanese should advance southward in southeast Asia and the south Pacific, but they can't really do that until they declare war on the CW and/or the US, and that won't be for a while. I was wondering what to do with my Marines, and I see you are using some in China. So I guess the best Japan strategy for 39/40 is to just concentrate on China.

(in reply to Centuur)
Post #: 24
RE: Remarkable game. Comments and questions from anoth... - 1/4/2019 7:34:22 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 21384
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwarrenw13


quote:

ORIGINAL: Centuur



I think I did pretty good in the AAR I made...

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3514454&mpage=2&key=


Thanks. I just took a look at that and will have to look at it some more.

I started a new game, for convenience using the quick start save, and decided to stick with this one and play it through. I know I lose a lot of options that way, but for me better to minimize the optional rules and just learn to play the basic game.

I played through the 1939 turns. The Germans took Poland on their first impulse and then proceeded to take Denmark. In the Nov/Dec turn they conquered Netherlands and declared war on Norway. They (I) botched the transport and couldn't get that executed, but I am in position to proceed in the next turn. Probably a diversion I shouldn't do, but I want to just do it for the sake of practice if nothing else. I plan to declare war on Belgium and go ahead and go all in against France next turn.

I landed a British force in France, but I failed to do much else with the CW. And I failed to do enough with Italy. Basically I have entered into a gentleman's agreement with myself to not take advantage of dumb mistakes I make with one side and allow myself to correct my mistakes. For example, I am not going to let the Axis take advantage of the fact that I failed to add any troops to Gibraltar or Egypt yet.

USSR and Germany are just going to remain neutral with each other and leave each other alone for now.

The US is just passing for now while playing some entry options like taking control of Greenland and Iceland while I get a handle on what that is all about.

Japan and China. That is where I'm really confused. The war there seems to be a stalemate or comedy of errors. But then I look at your AAR and I find you in roughly the same situation I'm in. I have slowly advanced as the Japanese and attacked when the odds are good. As the Chinese I've defended but advanced when I can do so without fighting. I keep wondering when the Japanese should advance southward in southeast Asia and the south Pacific, but they can't really do that until they declare war on the CW and/or the US, and that won't be for a while. I was wondering what to do with my Marines, and I see you are using some in China. So I guess the best Japan strategy for 39/40 is to just concentrate on China.

Japan fights China until it is at war with the US. It needs to do some preparation for the war with the US et al, but that mainly consists of building carriers and a few carrier air units (if playing with that optional rule).

Japan should build its land combat units ASAP. They can be used immediately in China, either in combat or as garrison (if playing with Partisans). The Japanese air force is sad. The best tactical number (3) is on a naval air unit - you should try to get that unit on the map. The goal for Japan is to put Chinese units out of supply and then ground strike them (artillery also works) to reduce their combat strength to 1.

Pay attention to the weather. Sometimes it is nice in the north, sometimes it is nice in the south. Rarely is it Fine in both.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to jwarrenw13)
Post #: 25
RE: Remarkable game. Comments and questions from anoth... - 1/5/2019 1:18:24 AM   
gw15


Posts: 744
Joined: 3/21/2010
Status: offline
For Japan against China just advance in a broad front and if the Chinese try to spread out to stop the Japs then attack individual units. With the Asian map now the same scale as the European map the Chinese front is wide open and there is nothing China can do. It is worlds different than the board game.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 26
RE: Remarkable game. Comments and questions from anoth... - 1/5/2019 11:58:02 AM   
Courtenay


Posts: 3204
Joined: 11/12/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

I'm having a debate at this very moment with myself (can't tell I do a lot solo play can you ) whether or not to post another global war AAR, but I fear my AAR's are getting stale and boring to the community.


Ricky, you write the best AARs that I have seen. I think it will be a long time before people are bored with them.


_____________________________

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

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 27
RE: Remarkable game. Comments and questions from anoth... - 1/5/2019 5:55:03 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 14354
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Courtenay


quote:

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

I'm having a debate at this very moment with myself (can't tell I do a lot solo play can you ) whether or not to post another global war AAR, but I fear my AAR's are getting stale and boring to the community.


Ricky, you write the best AARs that I have seen. I think it will be a long time before people are bored with them.

Thanks! I really appreciate the compliment! By the way it's Ronnie not Ricky.


_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to Courtenay)
Post #: 28
RE: Remarkable game. Comments and questions from anoth... - 1/5/2019 10:54:05 PM   
brian brian

 

Posts: 2914
Joined: 11/16/2005
Status: online
the new map of China forces the players to consider sound military strategy - what is worth fighting for? what will happen on the flanks of an advance? how will the advance be supplied? what will happen to the advance if bad weather hits? - far more than with the solid lines of counters that are nearly always present on the regular Asian scale map on paper.

and both sides, at different points, can make the classic military decisions of how much space to trade for how much time, and how much risk to accept within those decisions.

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 29
RE: Remarkable game. Comments and questions from anoth... - 1/7/2019 3:06:24 AM   
Courtenay


Posts: 3204
Joined: 11/12/2008
Status: offline
Oops. Sorry about the getting the name wrong!

_____________________________

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

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> Remarkable game. Comments and questions from another new player. Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
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

0.180