Someione please xplain

[wodin]

What makes WiF so special? Looking at the screenies all I see is another grand strat game..that isn't the prettiest and I think shows how old the design is with regards to it's graphics as I presume the boardgame looks the same..anyway we all know graphics mean nothing (but can be good to the eyes).

So gameplaywise what makes it different to all the other grand strat WW2 games? I we looking at CRT's and die rolls or something more indepth?

Please enlighten me..

Thanks

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: wodin

What makes WiF so special? Looking at the screenies all I see is another grand strat game..that isn't the prettiest and I think shows how old the design is with regards to it's graphics as I presume the boardgame looks the same..anyway we all know graphics mean nothing (but can be good to the eyes).

So gameplaywise what makes it different to all the other grand strat WW2 games? I we looking at CRT's and die rolls or something more indepth?

Please enlighten me..

Thanks

warspite1

Wodin, there are two ways of answering this: a) A detailed, well thought out, cleverly constructed, in depth and inciteful review of everything brilliant about this game, or b) a simple statement of fact.

I think, in the interests of brevity (although perhaps not helpfulness) I will go with the latter approach:

World In Flames is the dogs dangly bits [&o][&o][&o][&o]

P.S Please do not get me started on the maps or I am likely to be taken away in the middle of the night and shot [;)]

[SLAAKMAN]

Mr Wodin Mein Kamerad,
Allow me to elucidate; WiF Global Campaign 1939-45 surpasses all other wargames without parallel. Even the graphics contribute to its simple Beauty. Ill put it this way; imagine your having an orgy in a sauna with 2 dozen gorgeous babes who resemble Sheena Easton & Cheryl Cole. Thats about as close as it gets.
[:'(] [:D]

[slinkytwf]

I sent you a PM because I'm a contrarian with regards to the virtues of WiF, and I don't want to cause distress for my fellow wargamers who adore it.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: slinkytwf

I sent you a PM because I'm a contrarian with regards to the virtues of WiF, and I don't want to cause distress for my fellow wargamers who adore it.

warspite1

You don't like WIF? Are you a communist? Are you ill? [;)]

[slinkytwf]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: slinkytwf

I sent you a PM because I'm a contrarian with regards to the virtues of WiF, and I don't want to cause distress for my fellow wargamers who adore it.

warspite1

You don't like WIF? Are you a communist? Are you ill? [;)]

See!

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: slinkytwf

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: slinkytwf

I sent you a PM because I'm a contrarian with regards to the virtues of WiF, and I don't want to cause distress for my fellow wargamers who adore it.

warspite1

You don't like WIF? Are you a communist? Are you ill? [;)]

See!

warspite1

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: SLAAKMAN

Mr Wodin Mein Kamerad,
Allow me to elucidate; WiF Global Campaign 1939-45 surpasses all other wargames without parallel. Even the graphics contribute to its simple Beauty. Ill put it this way; imagine your having an orgy in a sauna with 2 dozen gorgeous babes who resemble Sheena Easton & Cheryl Cole. Thats about as close as it gets.
[:'(] [:D]

warspite1

Ignore this nonsense Wodin. He means 2 dozen gorgeous babes who resemble Jenna Louise Coleman and Michelle Keegan [;)]

[Extraneous]

Original: Wodin
What makes WiF so special? Looking at the screenies all I see is another grand strat game..that isn't the prettiest and I think shows how old the design is with regards to it's graphics as I presume the boardgame looks the same... anyway we all know graphics mean nothing (but can be good to the eyes).

So gameplaywise what makes it different to all the other grand strat WW2 games? I we looking at CRT's and die rolls or something more indepth?

Please enlighten me...

Thanks

I can only respond about:

What I like about Australian Design Groups WiF (the paper game version) and CWiF (the computer game version).

1) The convoy system
a) used to supply resources to factories for production
b) used to supply combat units.

2) The production system.

3) The USA entry system.
a) US entry actions: reaction by the USA for things done by other major powers. Bad reactions can allow the USA to perform US entry options and hasten the USA toward war.
b) US entry options: options the USA can make for actions by other major powers.

4) Very few strategic games handle Air combat, Sea combat, Land combat, weather, production, partisans, and the politics of World War II.


What I dislike about Australian Design Groups WiF (the paper game version) and CWiF (the computer game version).

1) Scale of the units:
a) I would prefer sea units to include destroyers.
b) I would prefer division level land units instead of corps level units.
c) I would prefer air units that are Squadron or at least wing size.

[Klydon]

First, to realize WiF's greatness, you have to be older than dirt.

In the grand strategic category of WW2 games, there just are not that many entries. The games that SPI came out with were very simplistic and not very satisfying and I don't know that they ever came out with one that covered the entire war both Pacific and European, in one game. War in the Pacific was a terrific game that I was able to play several times and although huge, I think it was one of the best. AH first came out with Third Reich and it was a step up from the SPI offerings back in the day for Europe. More stuff was developed for Third Reich as time went along including varients, etc. The issue with Third Reich was the units were all pretty much the same for a given side, be it air, land, or sea. The map was very plain. Being able to link the results of a Origins of WW2 (a seperate and earlier game) to how a game of Third Reich would start (German player may or may not have control of Austria for example) was a step forward. The rules set was terrible for a long time, being overly complicated for what the game was.

GDW's Pacific war was probably one of the best representations in terms of strategic scale WW2 Pacific that I played and we played it a lot in the late 70's. This game was also by the same person (John Prados) who did Third Reich. It was far better and was what Third Reich probaby should have been in the first place. VG's Pacific War just never got it done for me as a war game.

In 1985, World in Flames made its appearance and presented a far better and more satisfying WW2 experience on a strategic scale. Units showed a lot of variety from one nation to the next and even within a nation's forcepool. There was the variable US entry and a whole host of other things to tie it all together. Both sides of the map (Pacific and European) play well on their own with the system in place and that is incredibly difficult to pull off.

At some point AH released the Pacific theater version of Third Reich, but I never bothered with it since I had WiF. Obviously there were rules to tie the two together, but most anyone who has played Third Reich and WiF probably feels WiF is a vast improvement over Third Reich. The only advantages Third Reich provide are it takes less space to play and is probably a bit faster to play. Days of Decision provided the final piece to match what Origins of WW2 provided Third Reich.

Now, some of the things I don't like about WiF is the inclusion of so may extra units over the years, especially divisions. Planes in Flames and Ships in Flames were excellent additions to the game imo. The rest I am not as excited about and most of my heavy gaming with WiF was back in the day, so I really have not messed with a lot of the newer stuff, but it seems like it is just a lot of extra chrome.

Hope this helps and if you are still reading after all this, congrats on reading my book.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: wodin

What makes WiF so special? Looking at the screenies all I see is another grand strat game..that isn't the prettiest and I think shows how old the design is with regards to it's graphics as I presume the boardgame looks the same..anyway we all know graphics mean nothing (but can be good to the eyes).

So gameplaywise what makes it different to all the other grand strat WW2 games? I we looking at CRT's and die rolls or something more indepth?

Please enlighten me..

Thanks

The first noticeable difference between WIF and other strategic games of WW II is how the navies and oceans/seas are modeled. Land units are corps/army and division size. Each air unit roughly represent 50 airplanes (I am intentionally oversimplifying here). As is often the case, the naval units are individual capital ships, with the destroyers being "implied companions" as part of each ship.

What is so very difficult in modeling WW II globally is the time scale for land, naval, and air operations. The navy is especially difficult to model because of the relative small size of the units floating about in the enormous ocean.

Australian Design Group used a standard hex grid for land operations, with sticky zones of control. There's no big innovation there. Air units operate using the same hex grid and combats within land hexes are fairly typical too for land based war games.

But the oceans are modeled using both a hex grid and "sea areas". Every hex within a sea area is equivalent to every other hex in the sea area. So a German naval unit moving from Kiel into the North Sea travels just as 'far' (in terms of movement points and range) as a British naval unit moving from Plymouth into the North Sea. Once the naval unit is 'in' the North Sea, and assuming it is going to stop therein, it gets to choose which "section box" it wants to occupy. Higher numbered boxes enable it to be more active: more likely to 'see' and/or surprise enemy units, less likely to be surprised, better able to invade adjacent coastal hexes, etc. Lower numbered section boxes have the reverse effects. A unit's range and movement points can limit its ability to move into higher numbered boxes.

The result is that if a unit moves from Gibraltar into the western Med, it only costs 1 MP and 1 range point; while if a unit moves from Plymouth, through the Bay of Biscay and Cape St. Vincent, and then into the Western Med, that takes 3 MP and 3 range. Therefore, you should position your naval units near where you want to have them operate, and in general, you want them to be centrally located for maximum control over as wide an area of the map as possible. The idiosyncrasies of individual naval units (their movement, range, and combat factors) influence which units get placed where. For example, units with a lot of movement points can strike farther afield, but units without much range have to be close to their home port to have any effect at all.

So, the use of sea areas for movement (instead of hexes) vastly simplifies moving your navies about on the map. There is no need to count out dozens, or even hundreds of hexes to reach a destination. Yeah, it is a big simplification, but the payoff in terms of playability is huge.

---

The second major difference between WIF and other strategic war games is the use of impulses within turns. WIF has 2-month turns, 6 per year. Yet within each turn there are multiple impulses, anywhere from as few as 3 to 15+. How many impulses are in a turn depends on the time of year (more during the summer), the weather, and a die roll at the end of each impulse. During an impulse only one side gets to proactively move their units - they are known as the 'phasing' side. The non-phasing side gets to move a few units (mostly air units) but only in response to what the phasing side does. This is not your typical I-Go-You-Go sequence of play. During a turn air units and naval units can only move once (there are a few exceptions), while land units can potentially move every impulse.

---

The third major difference is that air power has a wide range of uses in WIF: tactical bombing of enemy land units to disorganize them before an attack or in direct support of a land attack, naval operations to patrol a sea area or to engage in naval air attacks on enemy naval units, and strategic bombing of factories and oil resources. Then there are the fighters which can fly against or in support of the various bombers. Since air units only fly once per turn, players have enormous flexibility in how they are used. Many bombers have a capability in all 3 types of attacks (tactical, strategic, and naval) though they all have one area in which they are especially capable. How, where, and when to use your air units during a turn are always very tough decisions, even for the most experienced players.

---

And lastly I'll add that the use of Action choices for each major power on the phasing side for each impulse is unique within WIF. Germany can choose a Land action, Italy a Naval action, and Japan a Combined. This lets Germany move all it land units (e.g. to attack France and Low Countries), Italy all its naval units (e.g., for operations in the Med), and Japan a few land and a few naval (e.g., to take reinforcements from Japan to China and follow up with a few land moves and land attacks). Here is another place where the players have tremendous latitude in what to do, each and every time they are the phasing side in an impulse.

---

That's just my take on some of the unique mechanics of the WIF game system. There are a lot more I could mention, but I am suppose to be working on code at the moment.[;)] Overall, the players have a ton of hard choices to make, but there are so many decision points that screwing up a few is rarely (I would even say never) disastrous. The same is true for bad die rolls. The better player almost always wins (except when I lose[:D]).

[Extraneous]

Original: Shannon V. OKeets

1) Australian Design Group used a standard hex grid for land operations, with sticky zones of control . There's no big innovation there. Air units operate using the same hex grid and combats within land hexes are fairly typical too for land-based war games.

2) Each air unit roughly represents 50 airplanes (I am intentionally oversimplifying here).

3) The result is that if a unit moves from Gibraltar into the western Med, it only costs 1 MP and 1 range point; while if a unit moves from Plymouth, through the Bay of Biscay and Cape St. Vincent, and then into the Western Med, that takes 3 MP and 3 range.

Steve:

1) "Sticky zones of control" is an inaccurate term.

You should use the expected gaming industry standard term "Semi-rigid zones of control".

Zones of Control


2) From the RAW " An aircraft unit represents 250 aircraft in 1939 gradually increasing to 500 aircraft by 1945."

3) "The result is that if a NAVAL unit moves".

[SamuraiProgrmmr]

The thing that makes WIF special to me is my opinion that the mechanics of the game give you the 'feel' of being in charge of the war effort.

Production is full of hard decisions that (in order to be good decisions) have to be part of a master plan of how you intend to prosecute the war. Generally speaking you can't have everything so you have to decide what is important to you. You have to plan ahead as much as 3 years (2 years to build some naval units and up to a year to 'gear up in an extreme case).

The land war is about soak off attacks as well as blitzkrieg. This, in and of itself, may not feel terribly different from other games but the way that the air war affects the land war again puts you in some interesting positions.

The air war is something special in it's own right. Again limited resources and uncertainty of how the enemy will react make for some very interesting decisions as well as opportunities to encourage your opponent to squander his resources leaving you an open field to wreak havoc. Just like during this era, Air is the new Queen of the battlefield and doubly so for naval combat.

The area based naval warfare in a game that is otherwise based on hexes is particularly interesting to me and some of the decisions that are made (do I leave the fleet out or return to base) have profound effects on your ability to protect convoys / wage war. Again, you can't do everything so you have to make sure you have a plan that is deep enough to know what is important.

The economic war (i.e. convoys and such) is again a set of decisions that must be planned ahead. Some times you may find yourself taking down a convoy line because you know you can't protect it. Other times you may have to hope that a little protection works.

All in all, when I played WIF I felt that the game mechanics gave me the feel of what it would be like to be in charge. That is what I like in a game.

In case it helps to put this in perspective, I also liked some other games for much the same reason.

* VG's 6th Fleet (and to some extent the other fleet games)
* VG's Civil War (you never had enough actions to do everything - decisions were interesting)
* VG's Vietnam 1965-1975 (If you brought enough firepower, you could kill the VC but they wouldn't be there when you got there - this game played much like poker).

That reminds me... there is the 'poker' aspect of WIF. My buddy Bruce (RIP) used to say that the threat of the things a stack could do was often more important than the doing of any one of them. You had to keep the defender under pressure until he made a serious error, then go for the kill. Of course, like everything else, that has its downsides as well.

Also, the variable length of turns would sometimes turn the best laid plans into so much toilet paper. I always felt it represented the concept that you never knew when the enemy would put up stiffer resistance than expected (a short turn) or fold like the proverbial accordion (a long turn). Your plans had to be flexible and (dare I say it again) deep.

Another thing that made the game special but will not be included in this iteration is the addition of the Days Of Decision game. With that game you could either simulate from Jan 1936 to the beginning of the war or even play in a detailed fashion from Jan 1936 to the end of the war. In this game, there were many alternate political possibilities that simply made for good gaming. For example, what if the French built the Maginot line all the way to the channel? Or, what if Russia did not purge the military? Or, what if the US was more aggressive helping the allies earlier at the cost of coming into the war later. These possibilities gave you a new, fresh game to play if you were tired of the same old Barbarossa style Axis plunge.

Lest I forget, there are many actions that can be taken (or avoided) by the semi-dormant US player early in the game that have an indirect but definite effect on the outcome.

I had a cabinet built so we could play on weekends and not lose the counters' positions to a cat or careless wife. There were MANY times when we stopped playing early (and did some other fun things) because the war was coming to an important decision point and someone wanted to think about it for a few days.

Put very simply, this is head and shoulders above any other strategic level WWII game I have ever played.

I hope this helps.

I will be happy to answer questions or defend positions if you have any further.

[warspite1]

Wodin, please see post 19 in the Manual Dwnload thread for some high level reasons I posted previously as to why WIF is so good.

In summary there is no one thing - rather its a combination of factors that creates a fantastic overall gaming experience. ADG have "just got it right".

[Sewerlobster]

ORIGINAL: Klydon

First, to realize WiF's greatness, you have to be older than dirt.

In the grand strategic category of WW2 games, there just are not that many entries. The games that SPI came out with were very simplistic and not very satisfying and I don't know that they ever came out with one that covered the entire war both Pacific and European, in one game. War in the Pacific was a terrific game that I was able to play several times and although huge, I think it was one of the best. AH first came out with Third Reich and it was a step up from the SPI offerings back in the day for Europe. More stuff was developed for Third Reich as time went along including varients, etc. The issue with Third Reich was the units were all pretty much the same for a given side, be it air, land, or sea. The map was very plain. Being able to link the results of a Origins of WW2 (a seperate and earlier game) to how a game of Third Reich would start (German player may or may not have control of Austria for example) was a step forward. The rules set was terrible for a long time, being overly complicated for what the game was.

GDW's Pacific war was probably one of the best representations in terms of strategic scale WW2 Pacific that I played and we played it a lot in the late 70's. This game was also by the same person (John Prados) who did Third Reich. It was far better and was what Third Reich probaby should have been in the first place. VG's Pacific War just never got it done for me as a war game.

In 1985, World in Flames made its appearance and presented a far better and more satisfying WW2 experience on a strategic scale. Units showed a lot of variety from one nation to the next and even within a nation's forcepool. There was the variable US entry and a whole host of other things to tie it all together. Both sides of the map (Pacific and European) play well on their own with the system in place and that is incredibly difficult to pull off.

At some point AH released the Pacific theater version of Third Reich, but I never bothered with it since I had WiF. Obviously there were rules to tie the two together, but most anyone who has played Third Reich and WiF probably feels WiF is a vast improvement over Third Reich. The only advantages Third Reich provide are it takes less space to play and is probably a bit faster to play. Days of Decision provided the final piece to match what Origins of WW2 provided Third Reich.

Now, some of the things I don't like about WiF is the inclusion of so may extra units over the years, especially divisions. Planes in Flames and Ships in Flames were excellent additions to the game imo. The rest I am not as excited about and most of my heavy gaming with WiF was back in the day, so I really have not messed with a lot of the newer stuff, but it seems like it is just a lot of extra chrome.

Hope this helps and if you are still reading after all this, congrats on reading my book.

That's what I was going to say.

WiF in it's plain vanilla corps sized land units, non-destroyer unit, 5CP convoy unit form was simply the first "complete" WWII strategy game. I'm not overly fond of all the add ons or optional rules. But throw in all the bells and whistles and select the rules you like and you can have almost any level of complexity you desire. It is a complete yet completely playable game as a boardgame. I hope it translates as well to MWiF.

[paulderynck]

For me, what makes WiF great is that it is the most exciting wargame I've ever played. The ingredients of that excitement are IMO:
- the action limit system
- the weather/effects system
- the naval search/combat system
and the variable turn-end system.

On top of that it allows you to realistically play any number of grand strategic alternatives rather than just pretty much replicating a particular WWII campaign over and over. Anything can happen and often does. Every single game is different from every single other game, even if you repeat a particular grand strategy. (Some of these games dramatically so.)

The action limit system also constantly produces difficult choices a player must make. That is really it in a nutshell. WiF is all about choices.

Even when events in the game become wild and wooly for a few turns, it somehow re-shapes itself to follow the overall strategic feel of playing whichever major power(s) you control.

[Extraneous]

ORIGINAL: Klydon

First, to realize WiF's greatness, you have to be older than dirt.

How to tell if your an "Older than dirt" gamer:

1) The first war game you played had a publication date prior to 1970.

2) You've played war games that you received in the mail that came in an envelope.

3) When they became available, you ordered boxes for the war games that you had received in the mail that came in an envelope.

4) The first boxed war game you played you bought for $6.00 new.

5) You have played a war game for over 24 hours straight. Half hour breaks were allowed for food, calls of nature, and by agreement.

6) You remember when Monster games were something new.

[Centuur]

ORIGINAL: Extraneous

ORIGINAL: Klydon

First, to realize WiF's greatness, you have to be older than dirt.

How to tell if your an "Older than dirt" gamer:

1) The first war game you played had a publication date prior to 1970.

2) You've played war games that you received in the mail that came in an envelope.

3) When they became available, you ordered boxes for the war games that you had received in the mail that came in an envelope.

4) The first boxed war game you played you bought for $6.00 new.

5) You have played a war game for over 24 hours straight. Half hour breaks were allowed for food, calls of nature, and by agreement.

6) You remember when Monster games were something new.

I remember those game sessions....

I took in those days the Fridayevening train to my friend, we (four of us) set up a game or continued the game and got late to bed. Next morning a fast visit to the supermarkt (which was located under his appartment) for food, beer and pretzels and off we go, till about 4 or 5 on sundaymorning when we usually quit due to a major mistake from one of the players (due to fatique...). After sleeping late, the afternoon was used for even more gaming. Than I took the late train on Sunday back to my place and was totally wasted at work on monday morning...
Ah, those were the days... [:D]

[Klydon]

ORIGINAL: Extraneous

ORIGINAL: Klydon

First, to realize WiF's greatness, you have to be older than dirt.

How to tell if your an "Older than dirt" gamer:

1) The first war game you played had a publication date prior to 1970.

2) You've played war games that you received in the mail that came in an envelope.

3) When they became available, you ordered boxes for the war games that you had received in the mail that came in an envelope.

4) The first boxed war game you played you bought for $6.00 new.

5) You have played a war game for over 24 hours straight. Half hour breaks were allowed for food, calls of nature, and by agreement.

6) You remember when Monster games were something new.

1: check, 2 check, 3: nope, 4 check, 5 check, 6 check. [:D]

Lets see:

FITE/Scorched Earth (just FITE at first and yes, I did set up and mess around with the originals, but never played them).
War in the Pacific
All 4 World War III series together as a mega game
Empires in Arms
SPI WW1
Invasion Moscow (I think that was the title: SPI game of hypothetical invasion of Russia by the world. Sister game was the US being invaded by everyone. Played that one too).
SPI Operation Market Garden
World in Flames of course

There are some others I am probably forgetting, but you get the idea.

[SLAAKMAN]

How to tell if your an "Older than dirt" gamer:

1) The first war game you played had a publication date prior to 1970.

2) You've played war games that you received in the mail that came in an envelope.

3) When they became available, you ordered boxes for the war games that you had received in the mail that came in an envelope.

4) The first boxed war game you played you bought for $6.00 new.

5) You have played a war game for over 24 hours straight. Half hour breaks were allowed for food, calls of nature, and by agreement.

6) You remember when Monster games were something new.

Yes to all the above & then some. [:D]