Can WIF follow history?

[vonpaul]

Hi Wiffers,

I'm playing a game of WIF through Vassal, it's my first game of WIF for about 4-5 years and for the last year i've been playing alot of EuroFront 2 (again through Vassal). My current game has gone off the historical rails so to speak:
-overloading Med to force Italy into war
-CW invasion of Denmark
-CW/FR capture of north africa)

I wanted to know if such things are the norm for WIF these days? My previous experience was that WIF was at least semi-historical (like EuroFront 2), but maybe it was just my opponents preferred that sort of game experience too.

I'm playing against a very experienced opponent, so maybe these are all one shot wonders that can be countered? However i guess what i wanted to know ..is it possible to play a mostly historical timeline without sacrificing your chance of winning? ie. not going France first?

Cheers,
Paul

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: vonpaul

Hi Wiffers,

I'm playing a game of WIF through Vassal, it's my first game of WIF for about 4-5 years and for the last year i've been playing alot of EuroFront 2 (again through Vassal). My current game has gone off the historical rails so to speak:
-overloading Med to force Italy into war
-CW invasion of Denmark
-CW/FR capture of north africa)

I wanted to know if such things are the norm for WIF these days? My previous experience was that WIF was at least semi-historical (like EuroFront 2), but maybe it was just my opponents preferred that sort of game experience too.

I'm playing against a very experienced opponent, so maybe these are all one shot wonders that can be countered? However i guess what i wanted to know ..is it possible to play a mostly historical timeline without sacrificing your chance of winning? ie. not going France first?

Cheers,
Paul

Difference in experience can lead in extraordinary results indeed, but given balanced players, you can have results that are comparable to history, definitely yes.

[michaelbaldur]

ORIGINAL: vonpaul

Hi Wiffers,

I'm playing a game of WIF through Vassal, it's my first game of WIF for about 4-5 years and for the last year i've been playing alot of EuroFront 2 (again through Vassal). My current game has gone off the historical rails so to speak:
-overloading Med to force Italy into war
-CW invasion of Denmark
-CW/FR capture of north africa)

I wanted to know if such things are the norm for WIF these days? My previous experience was that WIF was at least semi-historical (like EuroFront 2), but maybe it was just my opponents preferred that sort of game experience too.

I'm playing against a very experienced opponent, so maybe these are all one shot wonders that can be countered? However i guess what i wanted to know ..is it possible to play a mostly historical timeline without sacrificing your chance of winning? ie. not going France first?

Cheers,
Paul

my experience is that every wif game is different .. somebody do something new ....and in the next game you do something to counter the new thing somebody did in the last game ...

in my last game the CW player build Alexander the first turn ... and had 3 HQ and 8 land units in France ... he ended up with Lille and some coastal hexes and we never got him out ....

the only hex we had 3 stacks on was Lille. but there were a -8 on the hex (-2 alexander -3 factories -2 engineer -1 city )[:(] ...

to get a good attack on that. it need a good HQ (bock) and a engineer ... and a offensives

after using a offensive on it. it was only a + 8,5 on 2d10 ... a 50/50 attack

and this was before ground support and RAF was ready to beat us ...

the coastal hexes was worse. 2 stack to attack one .... that had defensive shore bombardment and ground support

so we just surrounded the hexes and went on with the war ....

but next time we will counter that because it is really a powerful defensive line.

[obermeister]

I'm still playing my first WiF game, and it's been going since January 09.  We are currently in July 1942. 

Our game, and the games that were played before it by this group are very ahistorical.  While it's technically possible to fairly accurately track history with this game, I don't think anyone does.  I don't think it's a flaw in the game, I think that since *most* WiF players are big history buffs they mostly want to try strategies differenent from those used in WWII, to try to do better than what happened historically.  We play with a number of options that open up new strategies and untie you from the historical path.  First, we play with politics in flames, basically a really simplified Days of Decision that allows you to influence and align minor countries.  Second, we play with the option that allows Germany to attack any one of her neighbors on the first turn, not necessarily Poland.

In our current game, Germany decided to attack France first.  The BEF never had a chance to get beefy before Germany took Paris.  This really helps the german timetable in that they don't have to take poland, rail their army back to the west in time for winter to hit, and then rail them back to take out yugoslavia after france falls in the spring.  They also managed to align turkey which not only sealed the fate of Suez but also led to a very successful barbarossa.  So yeah, very ahistoric.

[composer99]

If you're not playing with Politics in Flames, it's typical for the overall game to track history generally.

The game is designed such that the Axis is expected to have objectives left over at the end of August 1945 (Germany is still supposed to be kicking around with the core of the Reich intact!), so it is pro-Axis compared to the historical outcome.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: michaelbaldur

ORIGINAL: vonpaul

Hi Wiffers,

I'm playing a game of WIF through Vassal, it's my first game of WIF for about 4-5 years and for the last year i've been playing alot of EuroFront 2 (again through Vassal). My current game has gone off the historical rails so to speak:
-overloading Med to force Italy into war
-CW invasion of Denmark
-CW/FR capture of north africa)

I wanted to know if such things are the norm for WIF these days? My previous experience was that WIF was at least semi-historical (like EuroFront 2), but maybe it was just my opponents preferred that sort of game experience too.

I'm playing against a very experienced opponent, so maybe these are all one shot wonders that can be countered? However i guess what i wanted to know ..is it possible to play a mostly historical timeline without sacrificing your chance of winning? ie. not going France first?

Cheers,
Paul

my experience is that every wif game is different .. somebody do something new ....and in the next game you do something to counter the new thing somebody did in the last game ...

in my last game the CW player build Alexander the first turn ... and had 3 HQ and 8 land units in France ... he ended up with Lille and some coastal hexes and we never got him out ....

the only hex we had 3 stacks on was Lille. but there were a -8 on the hex (-2 alexander -3 factories -2 engineer -1 city )[:(] ...

to get a good attack on that. it need a good HQ (bock) and a engineer ... and a offensives

after using a offensive on it. it was only a + 8,5 on 2d10 ... a 50/50 attack

and this was before ground support and RAF was ready to beat us ...

the coastal hexes was worse. 2 stack to attack one .... that had defensive shore bombardment and ground support

so we just surrounded the hexes and went on with the war ....

but next time we will counter that because it is really a powerful defensive line.

I would have gone for cutting the North Sea supply link and disorganizing the defenders. It might only be possible at the beginning of a new turn when the Axis moves first, but it definitely has possibilities. For Calais and Bologne you could use the blitz table. - and the Brits have nowhere to retreat to. Start with Boulogne, then take Calais, and watch Lille wither on the vine. Of course this is all moot if you cannot control the air.

[michaelbaldur]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: michaelbaldur

ORIGINAL: vonpaul

Hi Wiffers,

I'm playing a game of WIF through Vassal, it's my first game of WIF for about 4-5 years and for the last year i've been playing alot of EuroFront 2 (again through Vassal). My current game has gone off the historical rails so to speak:
-overloading Med to force Italy into war
-CW invasion of Denmark
-CW/FR capture of north africa)

I wanted to know if such things are the norm for WIF these days? My previous experience was that WIF was at least semi-historical (like EuroFront 2), but maybe it was just my opponents preferred that sort of game experience too.

I'm playing against a very experienced opponent, so maybe these are all one shot wonders that can be countered? However i guess what i wanted to know ..is it possible to play a mostly historical timeline without sacrificing your chance of winning? ie. not going France first?

Cheers,
Paul

my experience is that every wif game is different .. somebody do something new ....and in the next game you do something to counter the new thing somebody did in the last game ...

in my last game the CW player build Alexander the first turn ... and had 3 HQ and 8 land units in France ... he ended up with Lille and some coastal hexes and we never got him out ....

the only hex we had 3 stacks on was Lille. but there were a -8 on the hex (-2 alexander -3 factories -2 engineer -1 city )[:(] ...

to get a good attack on that. it need a good HQ (bock) and a engineer ... and a offensives

after using a offensive on it. it was only a + 8,5 on 2d10 ... a 50/50 attack

and this was before ground support and RAF was ready to beat us ...

the coastal hexes was worse. 2 stack to attack one .... that had defensive shore bombardment and ground support

so we just surrounded the hexes and went on with the war ....

but next time we will counter that because it is really a powerful defensive line.

I would have gone for cutting the North Sea supply link and disorganizing the defenders. It might only be possible at the beginning of a new turn when the Axis moves first, but it definitely has possibilities. For Calais and Bologne you could use the blitz table. - and the Brits have nowhere to retreat to. Start with Boulogne, then take Calais, and watch Lille wither on the vine. Of course this is all moot if you cannot control the air.

they also controlled the Dunkirk hex ...

the clear hexes were around +7 .... and the first loss is a mot/mec/arm for the attacker ..
we didn´t dare risk the casualties

for the supply: the entire CW fleet was in the north sea ...

to counter this..... we should have played really aggressive with Italy ...

but a CW player that uses all his resources in holding does hexes ...and don´t care about the casualties is hard to remove ....

it would have taken a offensive and many German casualties

[Blorsh]

If the entire CW fleet was in the North sea......... Your subs will be very happy at rest of the worlds seas, so cut the pipelines and see Winnie with no resources and no oil.

[michaelbaldur]

ORIGINAL: Blorsh

If the entire CW fleet was in the North sea......... Your subs will be very happy at rest of the worlds seas, so cut the pipelines and see Winnie with no resources and no oil.

maybe that is a counter strategic to that .... but you still have to take out France... which is not easy with that many CW troops ...

but after we got Brest. we had a very efficient sub war...

but we was never able to cut supply to the BEF ... and soon the troops we need to kill the BEF was deep in Russia


if you play CW and don´t mind losing the troops... you can give France more time ...

and after France is fallen. you can tie up many German resources. you need 5 full stacks to hold the CW in the beachhead. and a HQ, fighters and bombers.

Russia was very happy. that does 5 stacks was not on the east front ....

[michaelbaldur]

it was a total sitz krieg ....

and CW never tried to break out of the beach head ...even after Paris was back in allied control....

for both sides. if you attacked ....and failed. you would loss the front ...

getting disrupted and losing units. opened the entire front line to counter attack....

and cw had 1 arm HQ + 1 arm and 2 mec ... so there was always a risk that they would breakout ....

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: michaelbaldur

it was a total sitz krieg ....

and CW never tried to break out of the beach head ...even after Paris was back in allied control....

for both sides. if you attacked ....and failed. you would loss the front ...

getting disrupted and losing units. opened the entire front line to counter attack....

and cw had 1 arm HQ + 1 arm and 2 mec ... so there was always a risk that they would breakout ....

I often play an offensive on CW units in mainland Europe early in the war. If CW commit heavy in France I usually adopt a strategy to go after CW. And then the losses for CW in France can really hurt. An active Italy is needed for this to work because Italy might be the only one that gains.

A few times Germany and Italy have weakened CW alot but gained no strategic advantages from the CW campaign and the Axis have cursed their bad progress. But then Japan have declared war and have had stunning success against CW since all the CW resources have been concentrated in Europe and most lost there as well.

Personally I often regard CW units in France (and mainland Europe) as a bull that see a red flag. [:D] If CW wants to play in mainland Europe early in the war I always try to make him pay.

[Skanvak]

I think that in Europe, the lack of diplomatic game tend to make the decision of the German more effecient. There is no taking of account of the internal problem faced by germany (several attempt at assassination of Hitler, the last one disorganized the high command. Several cost due to economic organisation and nazi politics if you see what I mean (military operation was not second for train use for ex...)). The hope that the Anglo-saxons will accept a separate peace is not depicted. The opposition between CW and USSR is absent which lead to a more rational war in Europe. (Totaller Krieg try to simulate that)

But at the same time it guarantee that the diplomacy of the game will follow the historical line of "inconditional surrender" that was actually followed.

[michaelbaldur]

ORIGINAL: Skanvak

I think that in Europe, the lack of diplomatic game tend to make the decision of the German more effecient. There is no taking of account of the internal problem faced by germany (several attempt at assassination of Hitler, the last one disorganized the high command. Several cost due to economic organisation and nazi politics if you see what I mean (military operation was not second for train use for ex...)). The hope that the Anglo-saxons will accept a separate peace is not depicted. The opposition between CW and USSR is absent which lead to a more rational war in Europe. (Totaller Krieg try to simulate that)

But at the same time it guarantee that the diplomacy of the game will follow the historical line of "inconditional surrender" that was actually followed.

you are wrong ...

first off .. you can make a separate peace any time you want .... if the other side accepts your offer ...

13.7.3 Mutual peace
Two major powers at war can agree to come to peace on any terms mutually acceptable (except for transferring units). Both the nationalist and communist Chinese must agree before China can come to peace. A neutrality pact is then in place between the parties.
Players can also agree to reach a peace between a major power and a minor country. In that case, they return to their pre-war borders (exception: see Soviet border rectification 19.6).

secondly... Russia don´t cooperate with any of the other major powers... which really limits what kind of operations. the Russians can help the other allies with ..

[Skanvak]

First off .. you can make a separate peace any time you want .... if the other side accepts your offer ...

Though I take your point on the Mutual Peace, I find it a bit unsatisfactory. Did you ever experienced one between 2 Major Powers? Beside it is just a cease fire as neutrality pact can be broken. Without DoD this option is a bit useless (the game is two-side, Dod is three-sided) and the limited option of this rule seems to indicate that it is not really intended to be used seriously.

secondly... Russia don´t cooperate with any of the other major powers... which really limits what kind of operations. the Russians can help the other allies with ..

But, except in DoD, Russia is not a side as itself which prevent the rush to Berlin.

[warspite1]

For me, WIF can follow history but can also provide, and indeed is more likely to provide, many different variations on a theme.

That said I think the beauty - one of many - of the game (DoD aside) is that the rules framework allows for broadly historical situations to develop, without anything too wacky that would take the game completely outside of WWII reality (whilst at the same time not strait-jacketing a player in terms of trying new ideas, new invasions etc).

As part of this, the counter mix correctly gives each player a real feel for the country he/she is playing and the advantages / disadvantages faced by that country in WWII e.g. CW, big but ageing navy (with too much ocean to cover), good quality, but relatively small air force, strong but numerically weak army etc etc.

If you want something more historical, then a more detailed operational level game like Europa would probably suit, but I think WIF is the perfect mix of a broadly historical game that is fun to play and presents each player with thousands of opportunties for new/different ideas.

My 2 cents.

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

For me, WIF can follow history but can also provide, and indeed is more likely to provide, many different variations on a theme.

That said I think the beauty - one of many - of the game (DoD aside) is that the rules framework allows for broadly historical situations to develop, without anything too wacky that would take the game completely outside of WWII reality (whilst at the same time not strait-jacketing a player in terms of trying new ideas, new invasions etc).

As part of this, the counter mix correctly gives each player a real feel for the country he/she is playing and the advantages / disadvantages faced by that country in WWII e.g. CW, big but ageing navy (with too much ocean to cover), good quality, but relatively small air force, strong but numerically weak army etc etc.

If you want something more historical, then a more detailed operational level game like Europa would probably suit, but I think WIF is the perfect mix of a broadly historical game that is fun to play and presents each player with thousands of opportunties for new/different ideas.

My 2 cents.

Hear, hear!

[gridley]

ORIGINAL: Skanvak

But, except in DoD, Russia is not a side as itself which prevent the rush to Berlin.

But the Russians are a side by themselves. In our group the Allied and Russian sides are always making sure what they do helps the cause against the Axis in general...but at the same time trying to make sure they get more Victory points than the other. The Germans can also get in on the act. Like the example above in this thread where the CW sent a huge BEF to France. In our group the German would be letting the CW Player know that such a move has the possibility of helping the Russians more than anyone in the long run...[;)]

As for WiF following History, IMHO does an excellent job at it. The rules/counters do a great job of allowing historical and ahistorical games to be played out. Sometimes even the ones that look like they will follow along historical lines even take some unexpected turns as the game progresses. Like in the one we are playing right now...everything going along historical lines...except China melting.[:(] Should make things interesting.

[marcejap]

ORIGINAL: michaelbaldur

in my last game the CW player build Alexander the first turn ... and had 3 HQ and 8 land units in France ... he ended up with Lille and some coastal hexes and we never got him out ....

the only hex we had 3 stacks on was Lille. but there were a -8 on the hex (-2 alexander -3 factories -2 engineer -1 city )[:(] ...

to get a good attack on that. it need a good HQ (bock) and a engineer ... and a offensives

after using a offensive on it. it was only a + 8,5 on 2d10 ... a 50/50 attack

and this was before ground support and RAF was ready to beat us ...

the coastal hexes was worse. 2 stack to attack one .... that had defensive shore bombardment and ground support

so we just surrounded the hexes and went on with the war ....

What about the Med? With so many corps, HQ, air and fleet in the north, Italy should have an happy time in north Africa. Could take Suez, Malta, and maybe try a debark on Gibraltar...

[michaelbaldur]

ORIGINAL: marcejap

ORIGINAL: michaelbaldur

in my last game the CW player build Alexander the first turn ... and had 3 HQ and 8 land units in France ... he ended up with Lille and some coastal hexes and we never got him out ....

the only hex we had 3 stacks on was Lille. but there were a -8 on the hex (-2 alexander -3 factories -2 engineer -1 city )[:(] ...

to get a good attack on that. it need a good HQ (bock) and a engineer ... and a offensives

after using a offensive on it. it was only a + 8,5 on 2d10 ... a 50/50 attack

and this was before ground support and RAF was ready to beat us ...

the coastal hexes was worse. 2 stack to attack one .... that had defensive shore bombardment and ground support

so we just surrounded the hexes and went on with the war ....

What about the Med? With so many corps, HQ, air and fleet in the north, Italy should have an happy time in north Africa. Could take Suez, Malta, and maybe try a debark on Gibraltar...

my mistake. I wanted to keep Italy neutral.

[loricas]

ORIGINAL: Skanvak

First off .. you can make a separate peace any time you want .... if the other side accepts your offer ...

Though I take your point on the Mutual Peace, I find it a bit unsatisfactory. Did you ever experienced one between 2 Major Powers? Beside it is just a cease fire as neutrality pact can be broken. Without DoD this option is a bit useless (the game is two-side, Dod is three-sided) and the limited option of this rule seems to indicate that it is not really intended to be used seriously.

secondly... Russia don´t cooperate with any of the other major powers... which really limits what kind of operations. the Russians can help the other allies with ..

But, except in DoD, Russia is not a side as itself which prevent the rush to Berlin.

this is becouse in many games players don't bid for nations to play at start.
if you use bid sistem, as only one nation win (not one side) you see diplomacy and
trachery between same side players: i see italy declare war to USA in the first turn...