Food in Flames unbalancing?

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

Lord Drakken
Posts: 59
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2013 12:48 am

Food in Flames unbalancing?

Post by Lord Drakken »

I usually play WIF with all of the optional rules. Hadn't played in years and had never played with FIF... so I gave it a try with all of the other optional rules activated.

I play with the oil rules and find them essential to a realistic and deep strategic game. However, I noticed that with FIF and oil active the CW was outproducing the Germans from Jan/Feb 1940 and throughout much of the game.

I was just wondering what other players think of this optional rule. Is this a good historical fix or does this optional rule unbalance the game?
User avatar
paulderynck
Posts: 8356
Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2007 5:27 pm
Location: Canada

RE: Food in Flames unbalancing?

Post by paulderynck »

I believe it is heavily in the Allied favor.
Paul
User avatar
michaelbaldur
Posts: 4800
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2007 6:28 pm
Location: denmark

RE: Food in Flames unbalancing?

Post by michaelbaldur »

it gives a bigger reward in the German submarine warfare.

it can be impossible to get food in flames to UK,
the wif rulebook is my bible

I work hard, not smart.

beta tester and Mwif expert

if you have questions or issues with the game, just contact me on Michaelbaldur1@gmail.com
User avatar
composer99
Posts: 2931
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 8:00 am
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Contact:

RE: Food in Flames unbalancing?

Post by composer99 »

In several key respects, the CW out-produced Germany during the war, to the best of my knowledge.

On average, (M)WiF probably under-estimates Allied production and over-estimates Axis production, for the sake of a more balanced game outcome.

The Food in Flames optional IMO adds some historical flavour (higher CW production, incentive to stay connected to the overseas Dominions), at the cost of that balance. (I just crunched the numbers and if CW production is un-molested for an entire 1939-1945 game, it produces 129 build points over and above the baseline when playing with Food in Flames.)

If you're playing solitaire, just be aware of that. If you're playing multiplayer, then whomever is CW had better have had to bid high to get it (or the Axis player has extracted some other significant concession in terms of optional rules).
~ Composer99
User avatar
Courtenay
Posts: 4371
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 4:34 pm

RE: Food in Flames unbalancing?

Post by Courtenay »

I regard Food in Flames a complementary to the Oil rules. They both favor the Allies. One should use one or the other, but not both. Playing without Oil helps the Axis significantly, so I would give the Allies Food in Flames to compensate.

Just because there is an optional rule does not mean that it should be used. Some of them (Construction Engineers!) make the game less fun for all players. Others (Surprised ZOCs) are quite imbalancing, and a few (Hitler's War) just aren't well thought out. And Intelligence comes very close to being completely unplayable.
I thought I knew how to play this game....
CanInf
Posts: 331
Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2014 4:31 pm

RE: Food in Flames unbalancing?

Post by CanInf »

composer is correct I feel. The CW did produce substantially more vis-a-vis the germans than portrayed in the game (e.g., early war aircraft production). The rule I would say is realistic, encourages a sub campaign and encourages the axis to move with alacrity. All, I believe, make the game better as a representation of WW II, and more fun.
AlbertN
Posts: 4201
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 3:44 pm
Location: Italy

RE: Food in Flames unbalancing?

Post by AlbertN »

A rule I avoid like the pestilence.

It's a rule that exclusively favors the Allies, and badly.
Especially with Cruisers in Flames UK does not need that big extra navy to be built and more often than not the UK player avoids the new big battleships production wise; which means the Germany will be much more hard pressed in terms of air war.
User avatar
Omnius
Posts: 831
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2012 12:10 pm
Location: Salinas, CA

More Realistic

Post by Omnius »

Courtenay,
I like both Food in Flames and the Oil rules as they make the game more historically realistic. Yes they favor the Allies but they are needed to balance out the German production which is probably a tad high and the German surrender rules which are way too lax at allowing Germany to keep on reviving. There are optional rules I don't like to use like halving Nationalist Chinese attacks or the naval one that forces a player to add an additional movement factor when moving into a sea area containing only enemy ships.

Omnius
User avatar
Dabrion
Posts: 740
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 10:26 am
Location: Northpole

RE: More Realistic

Post by Dabrion »

Is it "Food in Flames" or "Global Economy"? As some of the 2008 Annual stuff is in the game.. wouldnt this be an obvious one?

And yes it's a pro-CW rule obviously. You can see it as a token you can trade in for another option that favours the Axis (e.g.: railway movement).
"If we come to a minefield, our infantry attacks exactly as it were not there." ~ Georgy Zhukov
User avatar
Courtenay
Posts: 4371
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 4:34 pm

RE: More Realistic

Post by Courtenay »

ORIGINAL: Omnius

Courtenay,
I like both Food in Flames and the Oil rules as they make the game more historically realistic. Yes they favor the Allies but they are needed to balance out the German production which is probably a tad high and the German surrender rules which are way too lax at allowing Germany to keep on reviving. There are optional rules I don't like to use like halving Nationalist Chinese attacks or the naval one that forces a player to add an additional movement factor when moving into a sea area containing only enemy ships.

Omnius
Interesting. I don't like "In the presence of the enemy", but I have come to the conclusion that it is necessary to use in the Pacific, as otherwise both the Japanese and the US can launch completely ahistorical deep raids. I have discovered that both my Japanese and my US sides very much want to use it.

I completely agree about Chinese attack weakness.

Maybe my next game I might give Food in Flames a try. I have a natural bias towards the Allies, so I try to compensate for that by not choosing options that are too much in their favor. This game, I am using Cruisers in Flames, because I never had played with, or even owned, it, and was curious as to what it was like. One extra pro-Allied option seemed like enough.
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: More Realistic

Post by Centuur »

I liked to play with Food in Flames and the oil rules and compensate the Axis side by having the No ZOC on surprise impulse (to bad that it isn't coded yet in this game) and the Chinese Attack Weakness on...

Thing is, these rules are historically quite right.
The Germans did collapse the USSR front because they bypassed and ignored units with their motorised and Panzer columns and let the infantry deal with them. If I look at the advances the Germans make on average in WiF without the no ZOC on surprise impulse optional, the Germans can't conquer the same amount of ground which they historically did in the first two months of the war with the USSR...

Same goes for the way they crushed the minors they invaded. They knew exactly where the enemy units were and how to deal with them... The no ZOC rules on the surprise impulse simulates this...
Peter
brian brian
Posts: 3191
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 6:39 pm

RE: More Realistic

Post by brian brian »

I suggest reading the commonly available and quite cheap book (published in a mass-market paperback edition) by Barbara Tuchmann "Stilwell and the American Experience in China" before you play a game without using the Nationalist Attack Weakness rule. Neither Chiang nor Mao had any interest in fighting the Japanese. They knew the USA was going to beat Japan, and they knew they would be fighting each other as soon as Japan left. Chiang would gladly take American arms and stash them in caves for the coming Civil War, rather than pointlessly use them up fighting the Japanese, who had no chance to ever really occupy his country. The same went for Mao. I have read that his most famous unit under command, the 8th Route Army, peaked in strength at 10,000 men during the mostly guerrilla struggle with the Japanese. The USA spent considerable resources just to get a few divisions of Chinese to fight in Burma, and after years of investment in China, the Japanese quickly overran a new large portion of China in 1944 when they launched an offensive to clear Allied airfields.

World in Flames simplifies all this in the interests of a simpler, faster playing game, with a uniform rules system for every theater of the war, and it succeeds very well on those goals.

But if anything, the Attack Weakness should extend to the Chinese Communists, and that's how we play it as a House Rule. Japan has plenty of trouble holding on in China while it has to do Naval Impulses to counter the USN and is harried by a convenient US 15th Air Force which is quite easy for the Allies to deploy, which also operates with it's own, Chinese action limits.



I like the idea behind Food in Flames (Global Economy didn't gain much traction in the game and won't be seen in the future I think - the Major Powers have enough build points as it is, and you realize that quickly in 1944), anyway I don't play with FiF because I think the Allies already have the better chance of winning because the game system allows them to play quite ahistorically - with no concern for casualties.
User avatar
Missouri_Rebel
Posts: 3062
Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2006 11:12 pm
Location: Southern Missouri

RE: More Realistic

Post by Missouri_Rebel »

A rule I avoid like the pestilence.

[:D]
**Those who rob Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul
**A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have-Gerald Ford
AlbertN
Posts: 4201
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 3:44 pm
Location: Italy

RE: More Realistic

Post by AlbertN »

I like the idea behind Food in Flames (Global Economy didn't gain much traction in the game and won't be seen in the future I think - the Major Powers have enough build points as it is, and you realize that quickly in 1944), anyway I don't play with FiF because I think the Allies already have the better chance of winning because the game system allows them to play quite ahistorically - with no concern for casualties.

I think the main asset of the Allies is to be entirely able to shift their main focus on a single body of the Axis forces (EU or Asia); technically Japan can be confined and kept in honest check fairly simply by the USA - especially as Japan lacks the force pool and production to cover an amount of conquered lands (What's the point to get to India or Australia when you cannot sensibly hold your conquered grounds?); therefore the Allies can easily over-invest to deal with Eu-Axis (in most cases that I've seen they get hammered first).

Ontop of what I deem a quite poorly functioning submarine system - accounting how rarely they can find targets; how efficiently (or not efficiently) they can sink and withstand punishment); and mostly how much they can be used due to intrinsic German action limits.
Pratically Japan would be much more of a threat to Food in Flames pipelines than else due to their easier reaches of many Sea Zones in Indian Ocean.
Lord Drakken
Posts: 59
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2013 12:48 am

RE: More Realistic

Post by Lord Drakken »

Thanks for the input everyone. Actually German GDP outpaced the Commonwealth throughout the war, even late into 1944. Relative production is pretty accurate in the latest editions of the game minus the FIF rule, except for the USA production which is still underrepresented. I agree that FIF makes the game more realistic and encourages the CW to keep those long distance convoys going. It almost forces Italy's hand in declaring war and making trouble in the MED early on. The German U-boats can't do anything until they rebase in France.

I agree on Chinese attack weakness. The Chinese didn't have any incentive to fight it out. I also love the ZOC rules. However, they are not coded yet... the In the presence of the enemy is one of those rules I hate and love. I guess it is necessary in some instances and hated in others.

AlbertN
Posts: 4201
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 3:44 pm
Location: Italy

RE: More Realistic

Post by AlbertN »

I've yet to see a game where subs can make an impact besides the pinning ships for "garrison" duty.
At top they luck out one turn where due to astral combinations of planet alignment in the milky way, they deal a blow to convoys and turn ends before UK can replace the losses in the pipeline.
Lord Drakken
Posts: 59
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2013 12:48 am

RE: More Realistic

Post by Lord Drakken »

I was wondering what people would think of this as an optional rule?

Food in Flames 2.0 For each of South Africa, Australia, and India that the CW does not transport a resource from, they lose one production point.

This encourages the transport of distant resources and more realistic convoy placement.

It encourages sub warfare.

The rule only penalizes the CW if they do not transport anything from those countries. This is very realistic and doesn't change game balance.

It also stretches out some of those convoys they get from the neutrals they align.

One of the comments I saw on these forums... Axis players attack the Netherlands/Greece and then complain about how their submarine warfare has no effect. YES! And they have every right to complain! The Germans in WWII attacked all of those countries and they almost brought the CW merchant marine to its knees. The Germans should not be skipping the Netherlands because of the CPs the CW will get. If that is the case then the sub warfare rules still need tweaking. Or perhaps all countries should have their staring number of CPs reduced.

Granted I have never played with Convoys in Flames. But I do look forward to it some day if it can get coded!
AlbertN
Posts: 4201
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 3:44 pm
Location: Italy

RE: More Realistic

Post by AlbertN »

Don't forget one of the various reasons to not attack Norway too is the CPs as well you give to UK!
User avatar
AllenK
Posts: 7266
Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2014 1:17 pm
Location: England

RE: More Realistic

Post by AllenK »

I wouldn't be in favour. Partly under the general principle it is better to reward action than penalise non-action and partly because most of the CW resources have to be shipped from somewhere. If a resource has been successfully convoyed to a factory, it does not seem realistic to reduce it's value because it didn't come from Aus, India or Sth Africa.

Also, the way this alternative is written, it does not specify a resource has to be shipped to a factory in the UK, merely transported. Based upon the CW sets ups I have put together, they all would have satisfied the criteria as written and the presence or absence of the option would have made no difference.

Lord Drakken
Posts: 59
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2013 12:48 am

RE: More Realistic

Post by Lord Drakken »

Exactly Cohen. I find it insane that Axis players are taking CPs as their largest concern when deciding who to attack. Ignoring the Netherlands and burning an offensive chit to get across the Dyle river is an insane cost just to prevent the CW from getting the Dutch merchant marine.

Good Axis players ignore Norway, Greece, often the Netherlands all for this very reason. The merchant marine from these countries should be a factor in attacking. It should not be the dominating factor.

Has their ever been any discussion on the forums of making the convoy owner lose resources as the convoys are sunk? The fact of the matter is that when a convoy gets sunk full of resources putting another convoy out to sea does not bring those resources back. Perhaps losing half of a resource or half a production point for each convoy sunk would be a fair representation in the game.
Post Reply

Return to “World in Flames”