GW Counterfactual Take 3.

[rkr1958]

Turn 2. Nov/Dec 1939. End of Turn. Economic Summary.

correction. For CW, built 13 BPs and NOT 10 BPs worth of allowed units. Forgot and (also) used 3 BPs given to France. NAV 3 removed from production pool and place back in force pool to address this mistake.

[rkr1958]

Turn 2. Nov/Dec 1939. End of Turn. Build Spiral (1/6). Jan/Feb 1940.

[rkr1958]

Turn 2. Nov/Dec 1939. End of Turn. Build Spiral (2/6). Mar/Apr 1940.

[rkr1958]

Turn 2. Nov/Dec 1939. End of Turn. Build Spiral (3/6). May/Jun 1940.

correction. For CW, built 13 BPs and NOT 10 BPs worth of allowed units. Forgot and (also) used 3 BPs given to France. NAV 3 removed from production pool and place back in force pool to address this mistake.

[rkr1958]

Turn 2. Nov/Dec 1939. End of Turn. Build Spiral (4/6). Jul/Aug 1940.

[rkr1958]

Turn 2. Nov/Dec 1939. End of Turn. Build Spiral (5/6). Sep/Oct 1940.

[rkr1958]

Turn 2. Nov/Dec 1939. End of Turn. Build Spiral (6/6). Nov/Dec 1940.

[rkr1958]

Turn 2. Nov/Dec 1939. Victory Totals.

[rkr1958]

Two uncoded Optional Rules. Should I included them?

If you've been following my other thread, A Layman's Guide to Successfully Editing the MWiF Game File then you know that I've been producing a word capture document of edits in that thread. And that I've also updated/added to this thread recently. In doing this I got to thinking about a couple of uncoded optional rules:

(1) Guards Banner Armies

Guards Banner Army.png (97.63 KiB) Viewed 235 times

(2) Naval O-chits

Naval-O-Chit-Optional.png (89.14 KiB) Viewed 235 times

Now, both would require manual implementation but only the Guards Banner Army would require game file editing. After updating my editing thread and capture document I realized that the edits for the Guards Banner Army wouldn't be that difficult. I wondering if what your thoughts were on that optional rule and if it would be worth the effort to include?

Now naval O-chits wouldn't require any editing. Actually I'm not sure what currently happens if you play an O-chit during a naval. In all my years I haven't played one. And if people have played with and like the uncoded optional.

[Angeldust2]

I think, implementation of optional rule "Guards Banner promotions" would be an important progress for the game. I know from playing the board game in the past, it adds fun and suspense to the game. Naval O-Chit is also nice to have. Yes, please go for it!

[Orm]

Neither adds anything of importance to the game. In my humble opinion, of course.

This partly because I have a hard time motivating the options for myself. They feel weird, and unhistorical to me. Were the Soviet forces the only ones improving with battle experience? Anyway, I do not like these options, but my opinion could be changed about it. But perhaps in another thread if a discussion is warranted?

[Angeldust2]

Ronnie, I do not understand how the US transport the Philippine RES to Kunming in order to fulfill the trade agreement "off the books". There is no connection from CS with the unused CP to Hanoi. What am I missing?

[rkr1958]

Ronnie, I do not understand how the US transport the Philippine RES to Kunming in order to fulfill the trade agreement "off the books". There is no connection from CS with the unused CP to Hanoi. What am I missing?

Good catch. Should have been the South China Sea, but was OBE since Japan closed the Burma Road.

There is a risk of making a mistake handling these trades off the books and you rightly pointed and which I made. The upside was I didn't waste a lot of time trying to get my convoy routes working the way I wanted.

[Angeldust2]

Just for clarification: If Japan had not closed the Burma Road politically, the USA needed only 1 CP in South China Sea to fulfill the trade agreement with China, yes? No CP in Bismarck Sea needed at all, yes?

[Orm]

Just for clarification: If Japan had not closed the Burma Road politically, the USA needed only 1 CP in South China Sea to fulfill the trade agreement with China, yes? No CP in Bismarck Sea needed at all, yes?

Yes.

Only one CP in South China Sea needed

[rkr1958]

Just for clarification: If Japan had not closed the Burma Road politically, the USA needed only 1 CP in South China Sea to fulfill the trade agreement with China, yes? No CP in Bismarck Sea needed at all, yes?

Yes.

Only one CP in South China Sea needed

The USN just relieved from command the old seabag Captain in charge of USN convoys, routing and responsible for this mistake. In his place they given command to a highly respected and efficient officer. A Captain Nimitz who's on the promotion list for flag officer, which is a rarity in the US peacetime navy.

[rkr1958]

Neither adds anything of importance to the game. In my humble opinion, of course.

This partly because I have a hard time motivating the options for myself. They feel weird, and unhistorical to me. Were the Soviet forces the only ones improving with battle experience? Anyway, I do not like these options, but my opinion could be changed about it. But perhaps in another thread if a discussion is warranted?

I don't mind if you want to discuss such topics in this thread. I consider this thread open to anything remotely related to my current game.

[Angeldust2]

Neither adds anything of importance to the game. In my humble opinion, of course.
This partly because I have a hard time motivating the options for myself. They feel weird, and unhistorical to me. Were the Soviet forces the only ones improving with battle experience? Anyway, I do not like these options, but my opinion could be changed about it. But perhaps in another thread if a discussion is warranted?

I can easily agree with you in your assessment: Both optionals are not that important, they may be unhistorical (but not more than other rules), the Soviet forces were of course not the only ones improving with battle experience.
Nevertheless, I would very much welcome, if Steve would at last finalise their coding as he has announced a couple of years back in the state of the game thread. I feel they would add flavor to the game, would add new considerations, make more fun to play and would in general show the game is still being improved/completed, after such a long time. I guess, I just like the idea this game is still alive and thriving and not dead?
I think, it will be well worth the effort to try to use the parts already coded like the additional counters in a game via editing! These two optionals plus optional rule Frogman would be really nice additions!

[Courtenay]

I have never played with GBA, and only once with CBV. I feel that the latter benefits the Axis, and the former obviously benefits the USSR. I feel that either both of these should be used, or neither. So the ability to use GBA would be nice.

[rkr1958]

Turn 3. Jan/Feb 1940. Weather & Actions Summary.