Russian OOB accurate?

[Perelandra67]

I just bought this game yesterday, setting up my first game. So there's a good chance I'm missing something here.

In setting up the Russians I couldn't help but notice that the OOB seems to be way off. Just one example: 51st Army is scheduled to set up in Asia/Central Pacific, when it is clear it was deployed in the Crimea. Seems to be other inaccuracies as well.

Call me "WW2 OOB OCD" but this kind of stuff is important to me. Any thoughts? Has anyone set up Barbarossa or Lebensraum according to actual OOB's?

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Perelandra67

I just bought this game yesterday, setting up my first game. So there's a good chance I'm missing something here.

In setting up the Russians I couldn't help but notice that the OOB seems to be way off. Just one example: 51st Army is scheduled to set up in Asia/Central Pacific, when it is clear it was deployed in the Crimea. Seems to be other inaccuracies as well.

Call me "WW2 OOB OCD" but this kind of stuff is important to me. Any thoughts? Has anyone set up Barbarossa or Lebensraum according to actual OOB's?

World in Flames from its inception as a board game in 1985 did something quite different as to OOB. Rather than have exactly the same units set up in precisely the same locations as they did historically, the game randomly draws units from a "force pool". So there might be, say, 20 infantry armies in the force pool, and a major power would get 12 of them for placement on the map at the start of the game. Which ones you get is random. The starting locations can range from specific hexes to a broad swathe of territory (e.g., any hex in Siberia).

As the game progresses, each major power gets to build units, which are again drawn randomly from those in its force pool. If you build all of one type (e.g., HQs) then you can pay extra to "build ahead: one or more years. Units which are destroyed, go back into the force pool and can be built again. This is more or less what happened in Russia, where individually named units were destroyed early in the war and the unit designations were used over and over again for brand new units built later in the war.

So, you are not going to see the same set up each time you start a game. Indeed, the players will have a lot of latitude on where they place units on the map initially. The USSR usually decides whether to set up its units for an attack on Rumania, Finland, or Persia. There are only enough units to take on one of those minor countries at a time. Merely threatening to attack Rumania might cause Germany to 'give' the USSR Bessarabia. Then the USSR redeploys its units to the north and tries to accomplish the same feat with Finland. If the USSR wants Persia, then it will have to declare war. But the other two minor countries can have portions of the territory 'claimed' by the USSR.

I could go on and on with examples of how WIF differs from historical events. But the gist of the game is that each major power has capabilities (units and resources and factories) roughly comparable to those the actual major power had at the start of the war. It is up to the players to follow historical events or not.

[brian brian]

The counters just use numerical unit designations for a bit of historical flavor. No attempt is made to match specific units to specific deployments for the most part.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

You might be interested in the unit writeups.

[Perelandra67]

i thank you for your quick answers. While I am a little disappointed because I enjoy being historically accurate, I certainly see now where the "randomness" is indicated in the rules. Plus, if I wanted to, I could just "rename" everything by right clicking, and thus put units in their "right places." I wonder if anyone else has done that?

But then again, as you indicated, historical accuracy is not what MWiF is all about. Still, I am enjoying the game mechanic so far.

[Perelandra67]

yes, I am very interested in the unit writeups that's why my brain was having a hard time processing the 51st Army not being in the "right place" because someone clearly did the homework on the unit.

Anyway, it's all good, thank you.

[WIF_Killzone]

Glad to see you are enjoying the game, we would probably all tire quickly if the same units and same setup was used over and over again.

But yes, it would be nice to play a historically accurate game at least a few times. I wonder though if Russia setup historically accurate, if everyone would quickly setup the Germans differently just to see the outcome.

Its great as is I think but wonder if someone could spend the time to create-setup-save a game as historically accurate so we could all give it a try.

[brian brian]

I think it would just take an entirely different game to do that. Maybe the division-level "Master Edition" of WiF would work for that, some day. But the Russians operated at a completely different scale for example - tanks in "corps" for quite some time, not as concentrated as WiF makes them, for just one example. and note how even the 51st Army used as an example above was formed from what would be the Sevastopol MIL unit in WiF.

Also not every German infantry corps that fought in Russia has a counter in WiF.

You could only get but so far in such an endeavor. It's just not a game based on an historical OoB the way other games are.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: WIF_Killzone

Glad to see you are enjoying the game, we would probably all tire quickly if the same units and same setup was used over and over again.

But yes, it would be nice to play a historically accurate game at least a few times. I wonder though if Russia setup historically accurate, if everyone would quickly setup the Germans differently just to see the outcome.

Its great as is I think but wonder if someone could spend the time to create-setup-save a game as historically accurate so we could all give it a try.

warspite1

Because WIF is brilliantly designed for either side to win, there are liberties taken with units, unit factors and unit numbers. This is not limited to land units alone either - but also affects the air and naval units. The problem with trying to create an historical set-up is that even if you manage to replicate roughly the right units being set up where they were, there is little likelihood that that would equate to an historical set-up due to the counter values.

[Perelandra67]

I guess that's been my struggle - I'm a sucker for "realistic" war games. What drew me to WiF was the complex, robust rules. I'm still processing the OOB and combat parts of the game, a little different than what I'm used to.

PLaying solitaire, I don't think I'm seeing the game "in all of it's glory."

[warspite1]

If the need for "realistic" games is a deal breaker for you e.g. historical OOB's, participant countries etc then its probably wise to give this game a wide berth - it just won't give you that, and WITE or WITW or WITP-AE are probably better bets. WIF just isn't that kind of game - and can't be if both sides have a roughly equal chance of winning (which as I say, this game is designed to have).

If you can live with a WWII framework (to ensure things don't go completely off the wall) but within that a licence to pursue different strategies (e.g. invasion of countries that were neutral being involved), and some real liberties on units, then this game is worth giving a go..and them some.

BEST.GAME.EVER.....

[Perelandra67]

well, I started playing again, this time with a human opponent and I like the game much better.

[Aranthus]

As has already been said, WiF leans heavily to the playability end of the playability/realistic spectrum. That's the great advantage of the game system. It is unlikely to ever get old. I've been playing WiF since the first print edition came out, and it still hasn't gotten boring. It's why I keep coming back to it even though there are more realistic games out there.

One of the cool things about the computer version is that if you like to tinker with a game system you can do that to some extent. One of the ideas I'm working on is a more historical OOB, especially the air units and the production system. The problem, as any veteran will tell you, is that to make a WWII strategic game historically accurate you have to give the Axis almost no chance to win unless they can conquer England or Russia before the US gets in it. Not much fun for the Axis player. Anyway, if anyone is interested let me know.

[Perelandra67]

Well I'm still very much a beginner, only having (badly) played Barbarossa a couple times, though I'm onto a good game now with a great opponent.

And while it was tough have the Afrika Corps slugging it out on the road to Leningrad, I was just determined to enjoy other aspects of the game. You're right, sacrificing historical OOB is worth it for the overall playability of the game.

I'm interested in any discussion about setting up a WiF game that is historically accurate. I've not played a global war game yet so I doubt I could have any meaningful input though as far as gameplay. Like HOI though, the key to pursuing a possible German victory lies not with starting at 1939 or 1941, but in starting at 1936 or earlier. It was the decisions made then that kept Axis from possibly winning the war, IMHO.

[Rasputitsa]

The problem with games that try too hard to be historically accurate is that they are not realistic. The developers are using the same historical resources that we all have access to, you know where and when each division, motorcycle detachment, or artillery battery will appear, which is a depth of knowledge that no historical commander ever had.

I hope there will always be a place for games like WiF, which present the historical capabilities of each side, but provide a realistic fog of war where you cannot be completely sure which units might appear and where they might be, only then can you experience the real challenges the commanders faced at the time.

To have a realistic uncertainty in a game is priceless. [:)]

[RFalvo69]

My take is that the various counters in WiF represent the technological and manpower capabilities of various countries. Over them, however, they added a very welcome layer of "chrome". This means that, even if a Bf-109 counter or a Ju-87 one actually represent a mix of different aircraft, and the 1st SS Corps is actually an expression of German's ability to field a certain unique kind of units, you still can "attack in the center with the 1st SS supported by Stukas, with Messerschmitts flying in air superiority (with Von Manstein leading the whole affair)". It is, IMHO, the perfect balance between abstraction and historical feeling.

Which is part of what makes playing WiF so fascinating to me. I my bygone years I liked AH's Third Reich like anyone else. But when I first meet WiF and I discovered that, instead of "9 naval factors" I could actually push around the Bismarck and the USS Enterprise I was sold.

Heck, I do own a lot of supplements, like "Cruisers in Flames", which I never used in the tabletop version, only because I can gaze on the counters and think "Hey! I could play with the HMS Belfast!" - that ship being the first model I ever built [:)]

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: RFalvo69

My take is that the various counters in WiF represent the technological and manpower capabilities of various countries. Over them, however, they added a very welcome layer of "chrome". This means that, even if a Bf-109 counter or a Ju-87 one actually represent a mix of different aircraft, and the 1st SS Corps is actually an expression of German's ability to field a certain unique kind of units, you still can "attack in the center with the 1st SS supported by Stukas, with Messerschmitts flying in air superiority (with Von Manstein leading the whole affair)". It is, IMHO, the perfect balance between abstraction and historical feeling.

Which is part of what makes playing WiF so fascinating to me. I my bygone years I liked AH's Third Reich like anyone else. But when I first meet WiF and I discovered that, instead of "9 naval factors" I could actually push around the Bismarck and the USS Enterprise I was sold.

Heck, I do own a lot of supplements, like "Cruisers in Flames", which I never used in the tabletop version, only because I can gaze on the counters and think "Hey! I could play with the HMS Belfast!" - that ship being the first model I ever built [:)]

warspite1

Not me.....

[RFalvo69]

This may wander a bit off-topic, but I still remember when TR was "da bomb" - something never attempted before (as far as we knew here in Italy).

And some people don't like WiF. Generalisations must accept the fact that no one is perfect [;)]

[brian brian]

I liked the old division level games of the Eastern Front from SPI, where each unit started out upside down with a U-movement points for the factors where 'U' was the combat factors and 'U' meant 'Untried' - you wouldn't know what you had until you tried them in combat.

Hopefully some day electronic versions of WiF can add a little more Fog of War that would be difficult with paper systems, particularly in Production and unit deployments behind the lines, etc.

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: RFalvo69

My take is that the various counters in WiF represent the technological and manpower capabilities of various countries. Over them, however, they added a very welcome layer of "chrome". This means that, even if a Bf-109 counter or a Ju-87 one actually represent a mix of different aircraft, and the 1st SS Corps is actually an expression of German's ability to field a certain unique kind of units, you still can "attack in the center with the 1st SS supported by Stukas, with Messerschmitts flying in air superiority (with Von Manstein leading the whole affair)". It is, IMHO, the perfect balance between abstraction and historical feeling.

Which is part of what makes playing WiF so fascinating to me. I my bygone years I liked AH's Third Reich like anyone else. But when I first meet WiF and I discovered that, instead of "9 naval factors" I could actually push around the Bismarck and the USS Enterprise I was sold.

Heck, I do own a lot of supplements, like "Cruisers in Flames", which I never used in the tabletop version, only because I can gaze on the counters and think "Hey! I could play with the HMS Belfast!" - that ship being the first model I ever built [:)]

warspite1

Not me.....

I never got the attraction with AH's Third Reich. But that might be because I was introduced to WIF first.