I'm seriously considering taking the plunge!

[Auchinleck]

I've been following the long wait for this game to hit the PC for a number of years now. Even though I've never played the board game, and I haven't delved very deeply into war themed board games, I think I still realize the best war games have their roots in BOARD GAMES. From the outside looking in, there are some very attractive features involved in WIF. It's a handsome map, with handsome icons, a seemingly living breathing board game come to life on the pc. I have to admit the main thing that held me back from purchasing when most others were, was the lack of the AI. I kept reading that it was going to be released for 1-2 players, with solitaire play. I guess I fooled myself into thinking that meant there was some sort of rudimentary AI after all. Even if 100 bucks sounds expensive to me, I payed the $80 for Grigsby's War In The East, and the same for WITP Admiral's Edition, (because I enjoyed the Matrix versions of those games, years before they were remade in deluxe fashion). And since WIF sims WWII in it's entirety, I'm thinking it has to be worth the extra $20. Three Matrix games that I'm part particularly fond of, keep count of human and/or equipment casualties WITE, WITP, and Guns Of August. That adds a dimension of reality to those games that many wargames do not bother with. Also while playing, it is a constant reminder to me how terrible war actually is, and why mankind should somehow restrict war to games only.

I have just 4 questions if anyone wants to help sway me one way or the other, as to whether I should dive into the WIF club head first.

1) Until there is an AI, is solitaire play satisfying and interesting enough to make the game so you want to keep playing it, because of the variable factors of how dice rolls can drastically vary the outcomes of combat?
2) I haven't read in any forums how WIF displays casualties. Is it more than just icons disappearing from the board?
3) Is there a rule for the U.S. or other major countries to develop and use the Atomic Bomb towards 1945, and does it bring about a quick end to the war, as it does historically?
4) Can Submarines sinking enough ships significantly affect war supply and can they effectively sink warships as well?

[Redan]

I have been playing board and computer games for 50 years, and this one in its current state is a certified Turkey. I can't get very far into it without encountering some known or unknown glitch; where is it now? 16 published revisions, yes? I find it not worth the trouble. A crossword puzzle without enough squares to spell the right words. Matrix has published some very fine games recently. Not this one. I don't even try to play this thing any more.

[Schnaufer]

I have to agree with Redan, it is a very complex game system for sure, but Matrix QC seems to be slipping these days.

Have had trouble with 2 of the last 3 titles I purchased. Game system may be great, but implementation is not so great.

Having developers that support titles after launch is good, but is playablility taking a back seat to profits ?

Have a good day, and good luck on your purchase. [:)]

[markb50k]

Seriously folks, I am in turn 15 of a Global War AAR and it plays fine. Some patience and attention to detail is all that is needed. Some little bugs here and there but nothing that has EVER made me say "I shouldn't have bought it".

This is the internet, drama reigns supreme. Have some people had bad/frustrating experiences? a resounding YES!!!

But I haven't and some others who are doing AARs haven't either, at least nothing to stop us from doing our AARs and ENJOYING the game.

Just my experience, and I'm sure you'll hear otherwise.

Thanks

[Dabrion]

This topic has iterated in the last months for several times ((forum search is broken you would have to go back on the pages to find the posts). I don't feel like repeating r/n

I suggest the following: watch the tutorial videos (they are on youtube somewhere) and look into the AAR forum and the Tech forum (which doubles as a bug tracker). If you like what you see and have the time to wait for some point in time later this millenium to actually play.. then go for it. Do not trust the advertisements.


Let me just say: I shouldn't have bought it for that price.

[Ur_Vile_WEdge]

Only replying to questions 3 and 4, since they're gameplay ones, not MWiF particular ones.


3) If you play with the optional rule, only the U.S. can build atomic weapons. They're nothing hugely special. You can use them with a strat bomber to pump its strategic bombing factor up to 25 for a raid. You can't use them to force Japan to surrender.


4) Submarines can do a fair bit of damage. It's hard to do as much as they did historically in the battle of the Atlantic, but that's more just because WiF players tend to take a whole huge step of precautions that were adopted later in the war, like making sure EVERYWHWERE in the atlantic is covered by air, convoying, etc.


They can also sink surface ships, but they're not really suited for it. WiF doesn't have any particular mechanism for "Sub sneaks up on carrier and torpedoes it" You'd just have to do damage with their surface factors and probably spend surprise points to pick a juicy target. And if you do that, they're really no better than a cruiser, and a lot worse than a battleship.

[alexvand]

1) I happen to think that solitaire is great. Especially since there is so much to learn about this game. (I own the physical copy but haven't played it in 15 years.) I've spent more than 100 hours playing since release and have enjoyed it greatly.

2) The casualties are the icons disappearing from the map. Depending on what you roll between 1 and 3 land units will disappear back to the force pools where you can rebuild them. (Unless you choose to scrap them of course, which you may or may not depending on the situation.) When using the Planes in Flames optional rules a pilot may survive the destruction of it's air unit. Ships may end up bottomed if in port, or damaged and sent to the repair pool rather than outright destroyed.

3)Read the post above it covers this well.

4a) The subs can do significant damage depending on timing and so on. But they're far more important role is to simply exist in order to force the CW (or Japan) to cover it's convoy lines and spend precious actions defending rather than attacking. The damage they do simply by threatening is actually greater than the damage they really do. It is possible against poor CW play and with aggressive Axis play to bring the CW to it's knees. Not easy though.

4b) Sinking capital ships with subs is not modeled as well. Historically there were many carriers and battleships sunk by subs, but WiF does not model that well. It is possible but difficult to do.

[bo]

ORIGINAL: Redan

I have been playing board and computer games for 50 years, and this one in its current state is a certified Turkey. I can't get very far into it without encountering some known or unknown glitch; where is it now? 16 published revisions, yes? I find it not worth the trouble. A crossword puzzle without enough squares to spell the right words. Matrix has published some very fine games recently. Not this one. I don't even try to play this thing any more.

Loved Tactics ll Redan great game.

Bo

[bo]

ORIGINAL: Schnaufer

I have to agree with Redan, it is a very complex game system for sure, but Matrix QC seems to be slipping these days.

Have had trouble with 2 of the last 3 titles I purchased. Game system may be great, but implementation is not so great.

Having developers that support titles after launch is good, but is playablility taking a back seat to profits ?

Have a good day, and good luck on your purchase. [:)]

Boy would I love to answer that one hmmmm NDA. [:(]

Bo

[Numdydar]

I bought it on release day and even with the bugs that were present then was able to complete entire scenarios with no problems.

In the GC I have run into several, but nothing to date that a patch has not fixed or a simple work around was available. Obviously others here have a difference of opinion on this. So your decision will need to based on whether or not the game is worth it or not. As far as I am concerned the manuals alone were worth the price lol.

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: alex_van_d

2) The casualties are the icons disappearing from the map. Depending on what you roll between 1 and 3 land units will disappear back to the force pools where you can rebuild them. (Unless you choose to scrap them of course, which you may or may not depending on the situation.) When using the Planes in Flames optional rules a pilot may survive the destruction of it's air unit. Ships may end up bottomed if in port, or damaged and sent to the repair pool rather than outright destroyed.

All destroyed units go back to the force pool unless you scrap it.

[joshuamnave]

Alex's answer was badly worded making it sound like returning or not returning the units was based on a die roll. That's how I read it on the first pass as well. But what he was saying is that the die roll determines how many units, from 1 to 3, are destroyed. And the destroyed units are then returned to the force pool.

[alexvand]

Sorry about that.

Sometimes things seem so clear in your head, but don't come out so well once you write them!

[Manack]

ORIGINAL: Auchinleck
1) Until there is an AI, is solitaire play satisfying and interesting enough to make the game so you want to keep playing it, because of the variable factors of how dice rolls can drastically vary the outcomes of combat?

I don't have much interest in solitaire play. I also don't have much interest in the AI. Personally, where this game excels for me (just like the board game) is playing hot seat with your buddies on a large screen in a beer and pretzels atmosphere.

2) I haven't read in any forums how WIF displays casualties. Is it more than just icons disappearing from the board?

Not really.

3) Is there a rule for the U.S. or other major countries to develop and use the Atomic Bomb towards 1945, and does it bring about a quick end to the war, as it does historically?

Yes. But it doesn't bring about a quick end to the war. The game is really won and lost without atomic weapons. Which is historical IMHO.

4) Can Submarines sinking enough ships significantly affect war supply and can they effectively sink warships as well?

Submarines can have a large impact on supply and production, but really aren't there to go toe to toe with warships. Unless they get lucky and can surprise the fleet. I think this is well balanced in the game.

[brian brian]

ORIGINAL: Manack


Submarines can have a large impact on supply and production, but really aren't there to go toe to toe with warships. Unless they get lucky and can surprise the fleet. I think this is well balanced in the game.

I would disagree. SUBs sank a lot of capital ships in the war. The rules mechanics makes this more rare in the game, in my opinion.

One thing I would like to see develop out of MWiF some far-off future day, is some way to look at statistics from completed games. I think such stats would show this.


I have also thought for a long time that SUBs should create Presence of the Enemy issues. Surface ships feared the Submarine, and used Zig-Zag movement tactics as a result. But SUBs aren't part of the Presence rule.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

The problem with simulating the historical outcome of the War of the Atlantic is the hindsight available to players. WIF limits the availability of naval air units with long range to the years they were available historically. There is some similar modelling of the use of light carriers and escorts designed specifically for convoy escort duty.

But WIF players know the effect of using/not using escorts for convoys, so they beef up the escorts accordingly, using whatever forces are available: cruisers, battleships, even carriers. They also put a lot of air units out to sea to search for submarines. Had the Commonwealth (and USA) done that historically, they would have had better results against the submarines. If the Allies are heavy handed in protecting their convoys, then the Axis tends to cut back on building submarines. The alternative of building more and more submarines has a low rate of return.

But all this emphasis on the battle at sea can have bad effects on the Commonwealth elsewhere. Land units to defend the far flung Commonwealth possessions can get short shrift. Fighters and strategic bombers might also be fewer than desired.

In conclusion, while WIF does not model the war to rigorously follow the same pathways/results as encountered historically, it does model the trade-offs each major power had to make between land, air, and sea forces. Where those forces are deployed are crucial too, as they were historically (I am thinking of the Commonwealth's use of fighters early in the war, and Germany's use of fighters late in the war). The game does very well at capturing the effect of decisions on what to build and where to send it - as well as how aggressive to be when of the offense and how tenacious to be when on the defense. In the end, making those decisions, especially in response to what the enemy does and the luck of the dice, is where the enjoyment in WIF lies.

[Manack]

ORIGINAL: brian brian


I would disagree. SUBs sank a lot of capital ships in the war. The rules mechanics makes this more rare in the game, in my opinion.

Matter of perspective I guess. I always thought the capital ships sunk to submarines was an insignificant loss compared the tens of millions of tons of merchant shipping lost.

[Rasputitsa]

ORIGINAL: Manack

ORIGINAL: brian brian
I would disagree. SUBs sank a lot of capital ships in the war. The rules mechanics makes this more rare in the game, in my opinion.

Matter of perspective I guess. I always thought the capital ships sunk to submarines was an insignificant loss compared the tens of millions of tons of merchant shipping lost.

Quote -4b) Sinking capital ships with subs is not modeled as well. Historically there were many carriers and battleships sunk by subs, but WiF does not model that well. It is possible but difficult to do.

This theme is being repeated, so what is the evidence :

Allied capital ships (BB, CV) sunk by submarine where 'Royal Oak', 'Barham', 'Ark Royal', 'Courageous', 'Eagle', 'Wasp', 'Yorktown' (already crippled), if including CVE as capital ships then, 'Avenger', 'Audacity', 'Liscombe Bay' and 'Block Island'. The Japanese suffered the heaviest national loss of capital ships to subs, as part of the huge losses to submarines suffered by all classes of shipping, with BB 'Kongo', CV/CVLs 'Shinano', 'Shokaku', 'Taiho', 'Chuyo', 'Unryu', and CVE 'Unyo', 'Shinyo', 'Akitsu Maru'.

Germans and Italians stayed out of the way of subs, unless including the X-craft and human torpedoes ('Chariots')

Quick reference, of 38 battleships lost by all nations in WW2 (out of nearly 100 in service), there where only 3 sunk by submarine, total losses for aircraft carriers are 44, with 17 (of which 9 were CVL/CVE) sunk by submarine.

Battleships - sub losses not so significant

Aircraft Carriers - subs where a threat, especially if you include as capital ships the CVE, which go looking for subs and often found the sharp end, e.g. got hit first.

Rough guide, of 82 lost BB/CV/CVL/CVE, there where 20 lost to subs = 25%

Strategy matters, these naval losses are from coming out to fight, or running large convoy networks, some nations reduced losses of capital ships to submarines, by staying in port. Losses in capital ships to submarine, particularly battleships, seems very limited until the convoy war comes into play, then especially the aircraft carriers are put into harms way.

Disclaimer - these are the best details I could get, there may be more.

[Neilster]

It's worth remembering, however, that merchant ships could be built relatively quickly and cheaply. Liberty ships were eventually turned out in a matter of weeks. Capital ships represented a far greater investment in time and resources.

Cheers, Neilster

[bo]

ORIGINAL: Neilster

It's worth remembering, however, that merchant ships could be built relatively quickly and cheaply. Liberty ships were eventually turned out in a matter of weeks. Capital ships represented a far greater investment in time and resources.

Cheers, Neilster

Neil where have you been, miss your expertise, good to see your still here and helping posters.

Bo