ORIGINAL: ncc1701e
I did not buy it last winter, been quite away of gaming, and still lacking of time.
How would you convince me to jump into it?
First off, I wouldn't let anyone "convince" you to buy or not. I believe that has to be your decision given the $99.99 price tag and no AI for the foreseeable future, or ever.
ORIGINAL: Cohen
My suggestion if to buy it or not?
Buy it if you have someone to play it with. Otherwise don't.
Well, in my opinion, that's true if you're only happy playing against other players. I enjoy the military history of WW2 so much that I can't get enough of playing MWiF, even though I have to play solo. I'm not sure how many hours I've put in playing or doing an AAR on this game, but I'd estimate, on average, 10 hours/week for the last two years. That's 1040 hours for a cost of $99.99, which is less than 10 cents an hour.
I feel that MWiF is the most accurate "historical simulation" of WW2 at the strategic level ever made. It's from the "historical simulation" perspective how I approach, play and evaluate this game.
ORIGINAL: ncc1701e I am a player of CEAW grand strategy and enjoying it a lot. There is perhaps not so much detail compare to MWIF and the theater is limited to Europe but I found it is capturing quite well historical outcome. Battle of Atlantic is well done and the game is entertaining.
I too am a long player of CEaW-GS and I too agree that it captures the war in Europe and North Africa exceptionally well. I love the game and feel that it too is an accurate "historical simulation" of WW2 at the corps level. Maybe not as good as MWiF is, but darn good in it's own right. I also agree that the Battle of the Atlantic plays out well. But, while the CEaW-GS naval system gives reasonable results, the play mechanics of it are artificial.
ORIGINAL: ncc1701e
But, it is true I keep coming here to read about MWIF. It seems to have so much detail. Does it simulate well the struggle between US Navy and IJN in the Pacific i.e. carrier battle?
Yes! I feel this is one of the strengths of MWiF. I love the Global War Scenario because it does simulate the entire war. I've love playing with pilots and carrier planes. I love the thrill of the search rolls when USN and IJN naval forces are trying to find each other. And then, when one sides carrier planes finds the other side carriers and strikes a decisive blow. I also love the submarine warfare. When German u-boats or Italian submarines slip through allied escorts and really wreck havoc on allied convoy route. Then having to figure out how to salvage what routes you can with convoy points (CPs) you have in reserve, reroute what resources you can and salvage what production you can. I love everything about the naval, and production, system in MWiF. Every individual aircraft carrier, battleship and heavy cruiser that served in WW2 is represent by name and individual counter in the game. In fact, because players have the option to build navies beyond their historical bounds, there are counters for aircraft carriers, battleships and cruisers that weren't built but could have been. If you play with the optional rule light cruiser, then you get counters for all the individual light cruisers in WW2. And like any true WW2 game, naval power needs to be supported by air power to be effective. If you don't have airpower supporting your ships in a sea area that the enemy does, even if you greatly outnumber him in ships, you will soon be run out of the area or sunk. Your choice.
ORIGINAL: ncc1701e
Does it simulate well War in the East?
Yes. As the Soviet player, do you stuff the border in the hopes of keeping the garrison ratio between you and the Germans high enough to delay Barbarossa until 1942? If you miscalculate then most of your army is caught near the border and shredded by the Germans during the initial turn of Barbarossa. You see the value of winterize troops, which the Soviets have the most of attacking during snow or blizzards. If the Soviets can hold, in late 1942 or 1943 and on, you'll see the Soviets attack at moderate to low odds taking losses but wearing out the German army.
ORIGINAL: ncc1701e
Does it simulate well strategic bombing campaign?
Absolutely. You can choose to hit production or oil. Strategic bombing can be a devastating tool for the allies against the Germans, Japanese and Italians.
ORIGINAL: ncc1701e
What does MWIF have that others WWII strategic games does not have? [&:]
A complicated, sometimes frustration, but very realistic production model. As the Japanese, you have more factories than resources. You're always on the look for more resources to feed your factories. Then because of rising tensions the USA passes an embargo on strategic materials, reducing the flow of resources to your factories. But worse, is when the USA is able to pass the oil embargo. Since you have no organic supply of oil, after the USA oil embargo, all you have are the oil stockpiles that you have on hand, which might last at best 2 to 3 turns. So, the oil in the Dutch East Indies looks very inviting as does non-oil resources in that area.
I like the production model in MWiF almost as much as I like the naval model. Though routing resources points is sometimes a frustrating exercise as the game sometimes has it's own mind on how to do that.
Now back to whether or not to buy. Again, that's your decision but if you do be prepared to invest 40 to 80 hours reading through and watching the tutorials required to learn the mechanics and rules of this game. I had NO prior experience with WiF, which is the cardboard and paper version of this game. I had no expectation on the "rules" of MWiF track with the rules of WiF. So, my evaluation of MWiF is strictly for someone who had no expectation of how it played compared to WiF. But as a strategic simulation of WW2, there's none better period! But, you have to be willing to invest time to learn how to play it and MWiF does have a steep learning curve.
