Assorted Questions......

World in Flames is the computer version of Australian Design Group classic board game. World In Flames is a highly detailed game covering the both Europe and Pacific Theaters of Operations during World War II. If you want grand strategy this game is for you.

Moderator: Shannon V. OKeets

Post Reply
Vanman
Posts: 108
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2012 12:48 am

Assorted Questions......

Post by Vanman »

1. Is Germany able to send build points and resources to Japan via the Soviet Union (when its neutral)?

2. Can Naval Air units be used sans a CV? In other words, can they function solely as land based aircraft?

3. From your experience, what % of games are won by the Allies in the global campaign? I would suspect the Allies should win
a high % of them. If that is the case, playing global war 1 vs 1, then having winning based on 'victory cities' seems
pointless, and it would be incredibly frustrating for any Axis player to play the last couple of years of the game
since there is no hope whatsoever. Does it not make more sense to have both players bid, whoever states they can defeat
the Axis sooner plays the Allies. If the Axis win the game outright, Axis major victory. If the Allies cannot
destroy the Axis by the allotted time, the Axis win a minor victory. Not exactly sure what an Allied Minor victory would
be. You get the idea. Providing hope to the Axis that they can still win the game through survival makes some sense.

4. In my last game, we found the limited Japanese force pool to be a serious problem vs China and a Russian invasion of Manchuria.
What house rule do some people use out there to address this since a neutrality pact (like Germany/USSR) does not seem
to be available.

5. What, in your opinion, is the most underrated type of unit in the game? Engineers? Artillery?.....
Steve
User avatar
Jagdtiger14
Posts: 1685
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 11:58 pm
Location: Miami Beach

RE: Assorted Questions......

Post by Jagdtiger14 »

1. No

2. No

3. If you were to play a game straight up with no optional rules (rare), then the game favors the Allies in the long run(as it should)...in fact it should favor the Allies far more than it does since the US economy is WAY under rated just to mention one thing. Most people play with options. When getting ready to play at a WiFcon...after the players and sides at each table are determined (happens weeks before the con) and their contact info is shared, negotiations over the optional rules begin (in non-con games the optional rules are normally determined before sides are chosen just to keep everything honest). Negotiations keep in mind the natural balance, then the degree to which each option balances or un-balances the game to be played. Opinions can vary (sometimes greatly) over the effect of each option. This would be an interesting thread to start.

4. Reality is: Japan is a paper tiger. One tool developed to address this is the surrender rules both Japan and USSR can use...although I do not think its coded into MWiF as of yet. Its not uncommon to see USSR surrender to Japan (board game).

5. Air power in general...but you wrote "unit"...naval-wise: cp's...players don't like to make consistent investments into these until they take some hits...and then it can be too late. Land units: PARA+ATR. Their correct and timely use can be devastating. A lot of players fail to use them properly, or are afraid to use them for fear of losing them. Experience is probably the best teacher with these. They also can be used as a threat or diversion just by their presence.
Conflict with the unexpected: two qualities are indispensable; first, an intellect which, even in the midst of this obscurity, is not without some traces of inner light which lead to the truth; second, the courage to follow this faint light. KvC
User avatar
Centuur
Posts: 9013
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2011 12:03 pm
Location: Hoorn (NED).

RE: Assorted Questions......

Post by Centuur »

On 3: the bidding process, makes things a little better for the Axis. The Axis have to survive the J/A 1945 turn. The critical part of the game is the transition from offense to defense by the Axis. If the Axis stay to long on the offense, they might overstretch and get high losses, after which things are very bad for them. If they however stop the offense to soon, they also are in bad shape, because the Allies have to come back from a better position...

I've seen a game where it looked like the Axis were on the ropes early 1945 and surprisingly enough, the Germans and the Japanese ended up with 1 home factory hex a piece, thus winning the game.

Will the Allies win more than the Axis? I don't know the statistics...

On 4: I still don't have the exact picture on how to handle Japan with the unified map. The game has changed a lot. Japan can't affort to ignore the Chinese (which it could do in the board game). That's different indeed. But generally speaking: the Japanese depends on luck in China (the first attack should be a good result) and on how the war is going in Europe. If the Euroaxis are succesfull, than Japan can take more liberties. If not, Japan runs the risk of getting targeted before Italy is targeted. Also: patience is the key with the Japanese. Build up good reserves for the army, before going all out against China, aim for high odds attacks there. Don't fritter away any force. Use strategic bombardment to try to get the Chinese lose build points. It's not to bad not to attack in a turn, since that will cost the Chinese a build point anyway. So if weather is bad, stay put. And yes: voluntary peace (neutral pacts) and the compulsory peace rule should be coded, that will make life for the Japanese somewhat better.

On 5: the most underrated units are indeed convoy points. Any power who depends on overseas supply should have an abundance of them (for the CW at least 10 spare convoys throughout the globe, for Japan at least 8).

Air units: fighters! You can't have enough of those on the map. To much players build nice bombers and forget that FTR's are needed to protect those expensive planes. Enemy bombers kill your land units but FTR's on the frontlines kill enemy bombers before they can harm you boots on the ground.

Land units: Motorized divisions (when not playing with unlimited breakdown). Cheap and very important loss takers for blitzkrieg combats...
Peter
AlbertN
Posts: 4201
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 3:44 pm
Location: Italy

RE: Assorted Questions......

Post by AlbertN »

4. In my last game, we found the limited Japanese force pool to be a serious problem vs China and a Russian invasion of Manchuria.
What house rule do some people use out there to address this since a neutrality pact (like Germany/USSR) does not seem
to be available.

A very simple House Rule - Soviets cannot DoW Japan (Unless they're in Berlin or something like that).
Japan can DoW Russia - but then they've no compulsory peace coded. It's a choice of the Japanese player.

It's not just a problem of Force Pool. It's a problem of how the Japanese war effort would be directed and how they'd be pratically not building extra navy and barely naval air assets.
The Russian player would force the Axis grand strategy game of conquest pratically.

The map overhaul is simply so deep (because I assume coding needed for two different maps was exceeding that was easier to code for a one standard hex-size map) that the balance in the Pacific is heavily impacted (Even when you fight in the Pacific islands and seas, the amount of isles you can use as airbases is probably changed).
brian brian
Posts: 3191
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 6:39 pm

RE: Assorted Questions......

Post by brian brian »

China is ridiculously over-powered in the game. A lot of players have that complaint about Italy, but China is worse. The historical Chinese just bided time waiting for the USA to defeat Japan for them, while they conserved resources for their obviously coming Civil War. Playing World in Flames, the Japanese just have to deal with the difference in the game. Aside from the size of the Force Pool (WiF gets that right, IMO), Japan has a big problem in China facing an opponent that can take a land action every single impulse.

My personal solutions to help encourage a little less dynamic situation in China are simple - subject the Chinese Communists to the Chinese Attack Weakness rule, and make the Nationalists subject to US activity limits mirroring the way the ChiComm units operate under the USSR action choice. That softens some of the realism problems but doesn't completely solve them, in my opinion.



And for victory, it is a game of time and nothing else. Play 36 turns and see what happens; use the bids to compare how well you did vs. history. I find the game perhaps a 60/40 proposition for the Allies, _IF_ the Allied players understand how to play to the game system, which is a bit different than how the historical Allies operated.



The new map does have too many island hexes. Only some of those hexes could become functional airbases for more than a handful of aircraft - the reason Iwo Jima was invaded rather than other places. Just because there is a square mile (or less) of dry land somewhere doesn't mean it should have it's own hex, imo.



I'm not good with using PARA units. What I call the 1st American Parachute Army tactic can be devastating but I don't find strategic PARA campaigns all that realistic.

I do like using a PARA on a critical ARMor attack where a solid breakthrough into a second hex is the goal. Each paradropping units adds a +1 to the combat die roll and also gives you an extra unit to help hold the first hex against any possible counter-attack. A helpful tactic in the USSR.


I think an under-rated unit is the late war mobile AT/AA units with the red factors that can be doubled on an attack vs. enemy armor.

And currently completely under-rated in MWiF are the Russian Guards Banner Army units, which haven't been coded yet.
AlbertN
Posts: 4201
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 3:44 pm
Location: Italy

RE: Assorted Questions......

Post by AlbertN »

5. What, in your opinion, is the most underrated type of unit in the game? Engineers? Artillery?.....

I agree with the Convoy Points.
They tend to be underbuilt and then you get out of Convoys and you're stuck with low resources or supply limits for many turns.

Given I think some nations like Italy or USA even start with way too little CPs.
The new map does have too many island hexes. Only some of those hexes could become functional airbases for more than a handful of aircraft - the reason Iwo Jima was invaded rather than other places. Just because there is a square mile (or less) of dry land somewhere doesn't mean it should have it's own hex, imo.

That could be source for another Houserule - that islands need a port to have a functional airbase; and for the pacific "thick jungle" zones maybe there has to be a refenrence name on the map. But that could be overcomplicating something.
Just once US has many Land Based airplanes it's a bit easy for them to spam around the seazone they want.
User avatar
palne
Posts: 73
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2007 10:58 pm

RE: Assorted Questions......

Post by palne »

@brian: brilliant house rule:

My personal solutions to help encourage a little less dynamic situation in China are simple - subject the Chinese Communists to the Chinese Attack Weakness rule, and make the Nationalists subject to US activity limits mirroring the way the ChiComm units operate under the USSR action choice. That softens some of the realism problems but doesn't completely solve them, in my opinion.

I also strongly believe the USSR declaration on JPN should be prohibited. It is just too tough on the JPN early in the war otherwise, and that cascades to late in the war, which dominoes to GE who receives the brunt of the USA production. The enforced peace rule I believe is really necessary too. It really affects the whole game when USSR gets full land moves forever just by declaring on JPN, even if neither side really engages the other (eastern sitzkrieg?)

USSR needs some help too. Our group just has a devil of a time putting together a viable USSR defense before way east of Stalingrad. Turkey comes in almost every time on the Axis side.

I happen to like Italy being "overpower" So is the UK in my opinion....I really enjoy the UK&FF and Italy mixing it up from 41-43...

Air Power is over-powered in my opinion. The arms race for FTR's is really strange. As soon as one side starts to fall behind it gets really tough. The flip missions really stop offensive action--just 1 unit can stop 3 hexes of units from attacking as the odds plummet, which if it happens early in the turn can be decisive in J/A.

It is glorious to watch the UK take an Air action and bomb down a whole line causing flips in every other hex, followed by the USA land action where they get +1 attacks every other hex...that opens a front right up. GE's retreat one hex and rebuild their line. USA takes an air (or maybe just a combined with their 7 air missions) and the UK takes a land. rinse-and-repeat...

J/A turn can be very nasty for GE after 1942!

Except for FTR's, I don't think any particular unit type is overpowering, even if it is over-powered. There are just some units that must be build. The GE 2 str Engineer--just gotta have that guy. The 3-3 GE anti air (88's) and Anti tank unit is just exceptional. The way it has saved GE HQ's from air flip and land counterattacks is too numerous to mention.

British MAR corp...must have and must rebuild when it dies. Absolutely essential along with all the UK mar divs. Same for Italy. So long as Italy has its TRS and its MAR corp and MAR div, it has offensive capability in the Med. Juts wait for a late-turn impulse and under-guarded hex; a comb. action will set whatever Italian navy exists to sea with at least some shore bombardment....Mar Corp, Mar Div, and Inf Div, will take a hex! I've killed more ships that have been aborted during a turn by jumping on them in under guarded major ports around the med this way. Then, turn ends, land units unflip, I hope I win initiative where I can Dunkirk my units (usually the unkilled Mar Corp and Mar Div) out to see and if attacked, abort back to Italy. If not attacked, do it again! you'll be in supply if you plan properly...(at least for the subsequent invasion and possibly even the subsequent re-dunkirk if Italy still has 2 trs ((you leave the 2nd at base, or take it originally with no troop which is a hard thing to get yourself to do).







Phil




User avatar
rkr1958
Posts: 27449
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 10:23 am

RE: Assorted Questions......

Post by rkr1958 »

ORIGINAL: Cohen

A very simple House Rule - Soviets cannot DoW Japan (Unless they're in Berlin or something like that).
Japan can DoW Russia - but then they've no compulsory peace coded. It's a choice of the Japanese player.
If you don't allow the Soviets to DOW Japan under any conditions, until late game, then I believe this results in a serious exploit for the Japanese where they can strip Manchuria of Terauchi and other quality Japanese units without fear. In my last AAR I was "sort of" playing with this "house rule" and did strip Manchuria of these units. As the Soviet player I then renigned on this "house rule" and DOW'ed Japan, taking Manchuria and Korea. I learned a valuable "historical" lesson, there's a reason that there such strong Japanese forces in Manchuria (including Terauchi) and strong Soviets forces, including Zhukov in Asia and arrayed against the Japanese in Manchuria.

I personally would like to come up with a set of house rules that, (1) allowed a Japanese DOW on the Soviet Union at any time, (2) forbid a Soviet DOW on Japan under conditions that satisfied "serious" defensive forces in Manchuria and Korea and (3) enforced a compulsory peace between the Soviet Union and Japan if war did break out in the early game. The problem I have is that I'm an inexperienced MWiF player and also an inexperienced wargammer when it comes to the land war in Asia. With that said my initial thoughts on achieving (1) - (3) are: (1) is easy, no house rule required and (3) is relatively easy (I believe) following the intent of the uncoded compulsory peace optional rule with the exception of counting the garrison values without chits to maintain the peace once enforced. (2) however is complicated but I'm toying with something to the effect that if Japan has the forces in Manchuria and Korea to match the number of Soviet HQ units and corps/armies within 3 hexes of Manchuria or Korea, then the Soviets can't DOW Japan. (2) is enforced as as long as the USA is neutral and there are no partisan units in Manchuria or Korea. In the case of partisan units, house rule (2) could be put back in place (i.e., enforced again) if the partisan(s) that appeared was (were) killed off before the Soviets DOW Japan. That is, before USA entry, the Soviets could DOW Japan only if there were one or more partisans in Manchuria or Korea or they didn't satisfy the garrison requirement (i.e., as many or more HQ units and corps/armies as the Soviets).

ORIGINAL: brian brian

China is ridiculously over-powered in the game. A lot of players have that complaint about Italy, but China is worse. The historical Chinese just bided time waiting for the USA to defeat Japan for them, while they conserved resources for their obviously coming Civil War. Playing World in Flames, the Japanese just have to deal with the difference in the game. Aside from the size of the Force Pool (WiF gets that right, IMO), Japan has a big problem in China facing an opponent that can take a land action every single impulse.

My personal solutions to help encourage a little less dynamic situation in China are simple - subject the Chinese Communists to the Chinese Attack Weakness rule, and make the Nationalists subject to US activity limits mirroring the way the ChiComm units operate under the USSR action choice. That softens some of the realism problems but doesn't completely solve them, in my opinion.
I found in the initial global war AAR that I did that, for me, the Chinese attack weakness optional rule is a must. I do like the thought of applying that to the communist. I'm not sure how that could be enforced. However, including the Nationalist in the USA action limits could. Getting back to applying the attack weakness optional rule to the communist, how could one accomplish that in MWiF? Through setting die rolls and subtracting "-X" from the die roll, where X is dependent on the odds (e.g., -2 for attacks up to 4:1, -4 for attacks of 5:1 or greater)? Or, only allowing half the corps/armies and half the divisions adjacent to the defender to attack? Attacker chooses?
Ronnie
User avatar
palne
Posts: 73
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2007 10:58 pm

RE: Assorted Questions......

Post by palne »

RKR

The best fix is to institute the rule from the rule book into the game.

Allow a DOW and a Forced or Voluntary peace.

USSR takes zukov out of east asia? JPN can either attack or remove it's own HQ out of manchuria, de-escallating the front and using it in China.

This aspect of the EAST MAP is a really integral part of the game--especially with the new map with more land hexes.
PeteGarnett
Posts: 101
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2015 9:12 pm

RE: Assorted Questions......

Post by PeteGarnett »

Maybe just treat Russia & Japan as needing 2:1 garrison in order to DOW the other party. If one side pulls too many units to other fronts then they risk attack. Equally if you see the other side adding units then you know what may be coming & can act accordingly.
User avatar
Jagdtiger14
Posts: 1685
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 11:58 pm
Location: Miami Beach

RE: Assorted Questions......

Post by Jagdtiger14 »

I and those I play board game WiF with are not big fans of "house rules". Mainly because we have intentions of playing cons and do not want to get used to playing a certain way due to house rules and then being at a disadvantage at a con. Now that MWiF exists, I would consider this even more important.

As for ideas for correcting perceived problems...remember that MWiF will not deviate from the board game as ADG and Matrix have agreed not to do that from the beginning...and I support that plan. If you want to correct something, probably you would have to suggest it to the regular board game WiF community...good luck with that.

We have to deal with the situation as it is. Instead of looking for new rules to do our thinking for us, look for in game solutions. Those solutions may be a-historical and/or unorthodox...but so be it. I'm looking forward to trying out my plan in China for Japan. One part of that plan Centuur mentions above: use strategic bombardment to try to get the Chinese to lose build points. This is something I rarely see done in WiF, but did happen historically...so maybe MWiF is forcing something historical?
Conflict with the unexpected: two qualities are indispensable; first, an intellect which, even in the midst of this obscurity, is not without some traces of inner light which lead to the truth; second, the courage to follow this faint light. KvC
User avatar
rkr1958
Posts: 27449
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 10:23 am

RE: Assorted Questions......

Post by rkr1958 »

@palne, @Jagdtiger14 - I've come to my senses ... I agree that playing without house rules is best ... especially for the inexperienced like me. What about the uncoded compulsory peace optional rule? Would you wait until that one's coded to play with or would you enforce it via house rule?
Ronnie
User avatar
Jagdtiger14
Posts: 1685
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 11:58 pm
Location: Miami Beach

RE: Assorted Questions......

Post by Jagdtiger14 »

The compulsory peace option is in actual WiF, and its been my experience that the vast majority play that option. I think this needs to be coded ASAP. I would not consider it a house rule, and would enforce it as a "work around". Question: can MWiF hex control be changed manually? (without needing an enemy unit to go into them)
Conflict with the unexpected: two qualities are indispensable; first, an intellect which, even in the midst of this obscurity, is not without some traces of inner light which lead to the truth; second, the courage to follow this faint light. KvC
User avatar
Courtenay
Posts: 4369
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 4:34 pm

RE: Assorted Questions......

Post by Courtenay »

I would do the best I can as a house rule.

The rule that is not yet coded that is necessary is the ability of countries (i.e. SU-Japan) to make voluntary neutrality pacts. This is not an optional rule, it is part of the base game.

Clearly, it helps one side or the other to make such a pact, so one would think that no such pact would ever be made. However, WiF is a multi-player, not a two-player game. It is quite possible that a SU-Japan neutrality pact helps both the SU and the Japanese. The Chinese hate it, of course, and the Germans aren't too happy with it either, but it can make a lot of sense for the two countries.

I think just about every game I have played has either had an early SU-Japanese neutrality pact or an early SU-Japanese war.
I thought I knew how to play this game....
User avatar
Centuur
Posts: 9013
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2011 12:03 pm
Location: Hoorn (NED).

RE: Assorted Questions......

Post by Centuur »

ORIGINAL: Jagdtiger14

The compulsory peace option is in actual WiF, and its been my experience that the vast majority play that option. I think this needs to be coded ASAP. I would not consider it a house rule, and would enforce it as a "work around". Question: can MWiF hex control be changed manually? (without needing an enemy unit to go into them)

Among the debug tools, there is a tool which we can use to change the owner of hexes, hex by hex. In normal MWIF, that tool is not available.
There is also the fact (which is often overlooked), that according to the rules, players may elect to start with a neutrality pact in place if there is no current state of war at the start of the scenario (or a compulsory DoW required during the scenario). That rule also still needs to be coded, together with voluntary peace during gameplay and the optional rule for the USSR/Japan compulsory peace. Especially for multiplayer games, these are very important to have around.
Peter
Post Reply

Return to “World in Flames”