Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Unfair and Fair

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> WIF School >> Unfair and Fair Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Unfair and Fair - 7/28/2018 5:14:45 PM   
IBender

 

Posts: 242
Joined: 4/18/2014
Status: offline
Fair and Unfair.

I am not a veteran of this game as many of you are so keep that in mind please. I have played the game now for a while, maybe a year? Mostly Global with all the optional rules. Over this gaming time I have spent a lot of time reading on the forums and fairly often come across a conversation regarding one rule or another as being 'unfair' to one side or the other.

ie strategic bombing, engineers, oil and others.

As I have read the forums, I tended to agree with most arguments regarding a rule being unfair. However, the more I play the game the more I wonder if 'unfair' is maybe ok.

For example, every game I play as the Germans I am always frustrated France is as hard to conquer as it is. I can never stop my son from sending french cruisers into the Baltic immediately disrupting the 3 german convoys there. I can never force him to deploy french troops poorly. If the German gets bad weather rolls, or a few bad combat rolls he is in for a rough time. If I conquer France losing only a couple German corps I feel like I did really and unusually well. Once I conquered it by only losing 1 corp. Other times I lose much more. In short I am always frustrated attacking France.

In the end I wonder if maybe 'unfair' is ok. Maybe some rules are too one sided. I have mixed feelings on this topic and I was wondering if anyone had thoughts regarding it. Clearly this is a game and everyone can play it however they wish and that way is always just fine. After all if they enjoy it that is what counts.

I would love to hear what you guys think.

For now I am sitting here and I do feel some rules are unfair and I think..I am just fine what that.

< Message edited by IBender -- 7/28/2018 5:15:56 PM >
Post #: 1
RE: Unfair and Fair - 7/28/2018 9:17:40 PM   
Centuur


Posts: 8089
Joined: 6/3/2011
From: Hoorn (NED).
Status: offline
It's the balance of the rules you want to use which counts. If your Allied opponent wants to choose an optional rule which favours the Allies than you need to say that you want an optional which favours the Axis.

If you use all optional rules available in MWIF now, the game tends to favour the Allies a little bit, since there are a couple of optional rules like City based volunteers, en route interception, USSR-Japan compulsory peace and surprised ZOC which tend to favour the Axis a lot and are not coded at this moment...

Therefore, I would suggest that you should scrap a couple of Allied favoured optional rules, such as light cruisers, Food in Flames or construction engineers (the last one I would never want to play with. It's not reflected good enough in the order of battle of the different major powers, since the engineers of f.e. Germany in the war were totally different organised if you compare it with the US. German construction engineers were never meant to be combat units. But there is only one engineer unit at start for Germany and that has a combat factor... They should have had at least 3 non combat factors engineers at start if you look at the huge number of regiments for the German "Bautruppen" at start of the war in addition to the engineer with a combat factor, which should not have construction capabilities at all...).

_____________________________

Peter

(in reply to IBender)
Post #: 2
RE: Unfair and Fair - 7/28/2018 9:35:00 PM   
paulderynck


Posts: 7686
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline
IMO fair or unfair is not the way to express it. The definition (1) of fair is: "in accordance with the rules or standards; legitimate". If both sides agree to play with a rule then it cannot be unfair. The question is: which optional rules favor one side versus the other. There are a number of these and experience with the game will identify who they favor. Normally you want to try to balance these. But still there may be times when you want to select more options that favor a particular side as you may want to compensate for the non-favored side being run by a very skilled player, or the favored side being run by a novice.






_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to Centuur)
Post #: 3
RE: Unfair and Fair - 7/29/2018 2:46:06 AM   
Courtenay


Posts: 3222
Joined: 11/12/2008
Status: offline
The question is unbalanced or balanced. The only rule that I think is radically unbalanced is the surprised ZOC rule; I will not play with that one. (Actually, I suspect that playing without mechanized movement costs might be just as bad, but I can't imagine playing without that rule; the thought of panzers zipping through the Pripyat is just repugnant. )

_____________________________

I thought I knew how to play this game....

(in reply to paulderynck)
Post #: 4
RE: Unfair and Fair - 7/29/2018 10:01:02 AM   
Centuur


Posts: 8089
Joined: 6/3/2011
From: Hoorn (NED).
Status: offline
Well, if you would get carpet bombing in return for playing with surprised ZOC rule, I would not hesitate. That's a rule which really is hurting for the Axis, all those heavy strategic bombers hitting you precious ARM HQ's stacks again and again...

_____________________________

Peter

(in reply to Courtenay)
Post #: 5
RE: Unfair and Fair - 7/29/2018 3:58:14 PM   
pzgndr

 

Posts: 2495
Joined: 3/18/2004
From: Maryland
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck
The question is: which optional rules favor one side versus the other. There are a number of these and experience with the game will identify who they favor. Normally you want to try to balance these.


Might there be a way for experienced players to quantify the biases, say +1, +2 or +3 Axis or Allies, and have the game provide a summary of the net bias? One may assume that the default novice/standard/advanced sets are all neutral, but maybe not? And the proposed special set for future AI play, is that neutral or not? And as players deviate from these sets and add/delete options, it would be helpful to get a sense of how the selected options are biasing the game. Certainly not a perfect scheme, for sure, but at least something to help players (fairly?) balance or handicap their games as desired before investing time and effort into playing a lengthy campaign. Getting something like this added to the game interface may not happen, but perhaps someone could develop an Excel spreadsheet or other simple tool as a player aid. Just a thought.

(in reply to paulderynck)
Post #: 6
RE: Unfair and Fair - 7/29/2018 4:11:15 PM   
Courtenay


Posts: 3222
Joined: 11/12/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Centuur

Well, if you would get carpet bombing in return for playing with surprised ZOC rule, I would not hesitate. That's a rule which really is hurting for the Axis, all those heavy strategic bombers hitting you precious ARM HQ's stacks again and again...

I had forgotten about carpet bombing, because I never use the rule as written. I do think surprised ZOCs is more in favor of the Axis than carpet bombing is in favor of the Allies, but carpet bombing as written is certainly not a good rule.

(Then there is construction engineers, which is biased against human beings.)

_____________________________

I thought I knew how to play this game....

(in reply to Centuur)
Post #: 7
RE: Unfair and Fair - 7/29/2018 6:03:52 PM   
Centuur


Posts: 8089
Joined: 6/3/2011
From: Hoorn (NED).
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck
The question is: which optional rules favor one side versus the other. There are a number of these and experience with the game will identify who they favor. Normally you want to try to balance these.


Might there be a way for experienced players to quantify the biases, say +1, +2 or +3 Axis or Allies, and have the game provide a summary of the net bias? One may assume that the default novice/standard/advanced sets are all neutral, but maybe not? And the proposed special set for future AI play, is that neutral or not? And as players deviate from these sets and add/delete options, it would be helpful to get a sense of how the selected options are biasing the game. Certainly not a perfect scheme, for sure, but at least something to help players (fairly?) balance or handicap their games as desired before investing time and effort into playing a lengthy campaign. Getting something like this added to the game interface may not happen, but perhaps someone could develop an Excel spreadsheet or other simple tool as a player aid. Just a thought.



That's a difficult thing to do. That's because of the fact that the use of one optional rule in conjunction with another optional rule can negate some of it's effects.



_____________________________

Peter

(in reply to pzgndr)
Post #: 8
RE: Unfair and Fair - 7/29/2018 9:14:29 PM   
paulderynck


Posts: 7686
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline
Oh I don't know. You could do a survey of experienced players and have the ratings as zero = neutral, +-1 somewhat favoring, +-2 favors, +-3 massively favoring

Then average all the results and find out they are all zero or +-2.

The one standout is Oil. It favors the Allies but the vast majority of players on both sides choose it because of its historical accuracy, and let the favoring be damned.

_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to Centuur)
Post #: 9
RE: Unfair and Fair - 7/30/2018 11:44:01 AM   
RFalvo69


Posts: 375
Joined: 7/11/2013
From: Lamezia Terme (Italy)
Status: offline
I think that the gist of the matter is: "Should we play a realistic or a balanced game"?

In a realistic game you choose the optional rules that "make sense" (Oil, Motorised Movement Rates, Carpet Bombing...) and usually end up with a game that favours the Allies. However, it must be clear that such a game is played more for the (lacking a better term) "True WWII Experience" than for winning.

_____________________________

"Yes darling, I served in the Navy for eight years. I was a cook..."
"Oh dad... so you were a God-damned cook?"

(My 10 years old daughter after watching "The Hunt for Red October")

(in reply to paulderynck)
Post #: 10
RE: Unfair and Fair - 7/30/2018 12:43:20 PM   
Centuur


Posts: 8089
Joined: 6/3/2011
From: Hoorn (NED).
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: RFalvo69

I think that the gist of the matter is: "Should we play a realistic or a balanced game"?

In a realistic game you choose the optional rules that "make sense" (Oil, Motorised Movement Rates, Carpet Bombing...) and usually end up with a game that favours the Allies. However, it must be clear that such a game is played more for the (lacking a better term) "True WWII Experience" than for winning.


If you choose to use optional rules that make sense historically, one should include the no ZOC on surprise impulse rule too.
And one should exclude carpet bombing, since that was only used once in the war and never again, because due to the terrain damage, the attacking land units could not advance...

_____________________________

Peter

(in reply to RFalvo69)
Post #: 11
RE: Unfair and Fair - 7/30/2018 2:09:50 PM   
pzgndr

 

Posts: 2495
Joined: 3/18/2004
From: Maryland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck
Oh I don't know. You could do a survey of experienced players and have the ratings as zero = neutral, +-1 somewhat favoring, +-2 favors, +-3 massively favoring
Then average all the results and find out they are all zero or +-2.
The one standout is Oil. It favors the Allies but the vast majority of players on both sides choose it because of its historical accuracy, and let the favoring be damned.



That's all I'm getting at. I acknowledge this may be difficult to do and not perfect, but it's something. It would be good to see what a concensus of experienced players have to say about the default option sets. Are they all neutral or slightly biased? If players change this or that, what is the bias if any? WiF has been around for quite a while; is there any player aid out there that already assesses the relative worth of the various options or is it just a "gut feel" that experienced players use?

And of course there's a difference between historical accuracy and game fairness, but the idea here is to better assess game fairness and the net bias of selected options. Players can do what they want, but at least they could see if their options set is "fair" or biased to some degree.

(in reply to paulderynck)
Post #: 12
RE: Unfair and Fair - 7/30/2018 6:02:46 PM   
Centuur


Posts: 8089
Joined: 6/3/2011
From: Hoorn (NED).
Status: offline
On a scale of -4 (extreme pro Allied) to +4 (extreme pro Axis), I've made this list. But I expect a lot of people to think different about this...

Divisions 0
Artillery 0
Ski troops 0
Frogman 0
Combat engineers 0
Construction engineers -2
Territorials 0
Partisans -3
Partisan HQ's -1
Chinese warlords 0
Guards banner army's -3
City based volunteers +2
Siberians -1
Pilots 0
Carrier planes 0
V-waepons +1
A-bomb -2
Naval supply units -1
Cruisers in flames -2
Convoys in flames +1
The Queens -1
Rough seas 0
Oil tankers -1
Offensive chits 0
Synthetic oil plants +2
Fortifications 0
Supply units 0

Motorized movement rates -1
Railway movement bonus +2
HQ movement -1
HQ support 0
2D10 land combat table 0
Surprised ZOC's +4
Blitz bonus 0
Unlimited breakdown +1

Carpet bombing -3
Kamikazes 0
Night air missions -1
Bounce combats 0
En-route aircraft interception +2
Limited aircraft interception -1

Fighter-bombers 0
Twin engined fighters -1
Back-up fighters 0
Tank busters 0
Flying boats 0
Large ATR's 0
Bomber and no-paradrop ATR's 0
Flying bombs 0
Extended aircraft rebasing -1
Internment -1

In the presence of the enemy -2
Variable carrier plane searching +1
Amphibious rules -1
SCS transports +1
Defensive shore bombardment -2
Bottomed ships 0
Old navel offensive chit 0

Limited overseas supply -4
Limited supply across streets -1
Emergency HQ supply 0
Variable reorganisation costs 0
Isolated reorganisation limits -1

Oil rules -4
Saving oil resources and build points +2
Food in flames -2
Factory construction and destruction +1
Hitler's war +1

Off city reinforcement 0
Recruitment limits 0
Allied combat friction +1
Chinese attack weakness +2
Japanese command conflict -2
USSR-Japan compulsory peace +1
The Ukraine 0
Fractional odds 0
Intelligence -3
Scrap units 0
Additional Chinese cities +2
Extended game length 0
Breaking the Nazi-Soviet pact +1

_____________________________

Peter

(in reply to pzgndr)
Post #: 13
RE: Unfair and Fair - 7/30/2018 9:49:26 PM   
paulderynck


Posts: 7686
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Centuur


quote:

ORIGINAL: RFalvo69

I think that the gist of the matter is: "Should we play a realistic or a balanced game"?

In a realistic game you choose the optional rules that "make sense" (Oil, Motorised Movement Rates, Carpet Bombing...) and usually end up with a game that favours the Allies. However, it must be clear that such a game is played more for the (lacking a better term) "True WWII Experience" than for winning.


If you choose to use optional rules that make sense historically, one should include the no ZOC on surprise impulse rule too.
And one should exclude carpet bombing, since that was only used once in the war and never again, because due to the terrain damage, the attacking land units could not advance...

Carpet bombing was used three times between D-Day and Falaise Gap. (And arguably also at Monte Casino.) But the problem with carpet bombing in WiF is the table should have possible flips for both the defender and adjacent attackers and less chances for destroying whole units and air units should be exempt from any results.

< Message edited by paulderynck -- 7/30/2018 9:51:19 PM >


_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to Centuur)
Post #: 14
RE: Unfair and Fair - 7/30/2018 10:30:17 PM   
Courtenay


Posts: 3222
Joined: 11/12/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

quote:

ORIGINAL: Centuur


quote:

ORIGINAL: RFalvo69

I think that the gist of the matter is: "Should we play a realistic or a balanced game"?

In a realistic game you choose the optional rules that "make sense" (Oil, Motorised Movement Rates, Carpet Bombing...) and usually end up with a game that favours the Allies. However, it must be clear that such a game is played more for the (lacking a better term) "True WWII Experience" than for winning.


If you choose to use optional rules that make sense historically, one should include the no ZOC on surprise impulse rule too.
And one should exclude carpet bombing, since that was only used once in the war and never again, because due to the terrain damage, the attacking land units could not advance...

Carpet bombing was used three times between D-Day and Falaise Gap. (And arguably also at Monte Casino.) But the problem with carpet bombing in WiF is the table should have possible flips for both the defender and adjacent attackers and less chances for destroying whole units and air units should be exempt from any results.

Carpet bombing was used more often than that. It was used at least ten times on the Western Frone, at Monte Cassino, and once in North Africa. It may have been used more than this; this is simply what I have found in a quick search. It was used often enough that the Germans developed doctrine for its troops on how to survive carpet bombing. (Get in a shallow trench, below line of sight from fragments on the ground hitting you, place hands over ears, and keep your mouth open. Do NOT get in a deep trench; it is liable to collapse on top of you.)

The problem with carpet bombing in WiF is that it has little resemblance to carpet bombing in real life. The tactic of hunting out HQs and bombing them that can be used in WiF is simply impossible in real life; rear area logistics were too dispersed to be targeted that way. Furthermore, carpet bombing, even when successful, did not destroy formations (unlike the atomic bomb), it rendered them combat ineffective for a brief period of time. A better rule would be to restrict carpet bombing to hexes in the ZOC of a cooperating major power, with the effect of disorganizing a unit, and making it incapable of receiving supplies for the remainder of that impulse. (However, a HQ can still be part of a supply chain for other units.)

_____________________________

I thought I knew how to play this game....

(in reply to paulderynck)
Post #: 15
RE: Unfair and Fair - 7/31/2018 11:24:22 AM   
TeaLeaf


Posts: 388
Joined: 11/5/2014
Status: offline
There are wargames that force a player to play along certain directives, and nothing prevents a WiF player to play with houserules doing the same. If you'd want to recreate the historical feel, you could agree on France having to set up (and stay) behind the Maginot-line with certain number of forces (until it is too late).
But then again, then you should also make Germany do maniacal things, like attacking the Red Army in winter turns, with very low odds/modifiers. Etc. etc.
But that's the exciting thing about WiF: we don't get orders from a maniac, or nestor generals who are stuck in obsolete doctrines that might have worked in another era.

Seeing your other post you are playing 2d10 or just started playing it. That option should make life much easier for the attacker,
so especially for Germany during the early years of the war.
An example. Compare a 2:1 Blitz-attack of two German panzer stacks against a french infantry stack with an AT-division and two disorganised corps, 1d10 vs. 2d10.
* 1d10, the attacker has 40% chance of all his units becoming disorganised, and a 10% chance of losing a unit himself.
* 2d10, the attacker has 3% chance of all his units becoming disorganised, a 7% chance of losing a unit, and 18% of becoming ½DG. If the French had an ARM/MECH division included, the chance Germany lose a unit would increase from 7% to 14%.

I call that quite an improvement for the Attacker (the Axis, because they are the aggressors early on and have first shot at victory). The total chance of any attacking unit becoming DG is reduced from 40% to 21% (18% being only ½DG). OK, the Allies will benefit from this as well once they are on the offensive, but that is later, after the Axis failed.

Personally I have mixed feelings about how land combat in WiF developed over the years; in WiF 4 (before the 2d10 option), when I started to play WiF, the chance that the attacker would be disorganised in the above example (Germany) was 70%, with a 40% chance of also loosing a unit. Not including Fractional odds, an option that was also introduced at a later point, IIRC. So over the years I've seen a rebalancing in favor of the Axis. I know, I should say 'the attacker', but I think Fall Gelb and Barbarossa and all of a sudden 'attacker' becomes 'Axis'.

Anyway, I am still somewhat happy with the probability distribution in land combat, but I have to hope WiF does not develop into an Axis and Allies sort of game, where both sides are given an equal chance to conquer the entire world and time works against the allies!

(in reply to Courtenay)
Post #: 16
RE: Unfair and Fair - 7/31/2018 3:20:51 PM   
pzgndr

 

Posts: 2495
Joined: 3/18/2004
From: Maryland
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Centuur
On a scale of -4 (extreme pro Allied) to +4 (extreme pro Axis), I've made this list. But I expect a lot of people to think different about this...


Alright, this is a mark on the wall. I made an Excel spreadsheet (attached).

Interesting results. Novice set is -4, Standard set is -11, Advanced set is -22, and the proposed AI set is -16. This indicates an increasingly pro-Allied bias with the optional rules sets. Which begs a question: Is the game itself biased towards pro-Axis and by how much? Perhaps a -10 handicap for Allies might be considered balancing, but who knows. Peter's numbers are a first swag, and probably need to be reconsidered.

I will offer two thoughts:
1. Ideally, the default optional rule sets should be neutral. Unless a recognized pro-Axis bias exists in the game and then some pro-Allied handicap should also be recognized as balancing to achieve neutrality. For fairness, however players choose to define it.
2. The discrepancies between the Standard set and the proposed AI set are questionable. Several standard options are not included, but several advanced options are included. IMHO, the AI should use the Standard set, but that's another discussion issue for Steve to consider.


Attachment (1)

(in reply to Centuur)
Post #: 17
RE: Unfair and Fair - 7/31/2018 3:50:20 PM   
brian brian

 

Posts: 2923
Joined: 11/16/2005
Status: offline
These are the deepest questions of the game. Is the Allied experience in France fair or unfair if the Germans use both of their Offensive Chits there? Did the Germans use one to break the Weygand Line in Fall Rot? No one knows.

The options have deeper concerns than pro- or anti- this side or that side: perceived realism, complexity, and playing time.

The ‘fairness’ and balance of the game depend greatly on the experience of the players, and also their willingness to play unhistorically. Will the British ruthlessly order the Tommies of all the Commonwealth countries to attempt to pin down the Wehrmacht on The Continent, with no hope of withdrawal or realistic chance of holding out till Uncle Sam’s boys show up, rather than doubling the size of the Royal Navy for zero victory points, all so that the Communists can have more time to prepare the Red Army for the real war still to come? Quite the rabbit hole question. The western WiF Supreme Commanders don’t have to face voters to stay in power.

(in reply to pzgndr)
Post #: 18
RE: Unfair and Fair - 7/31/2018 5:17:55 PM   
TeaLeaf


Posts: 388
Joined: 11/5/2014
Status: offline
You calculated the values from Centuur into the optional rules sets. Interesting. I think some of those values are a bit off, if the advanced set gets to -22, which should read as "broken beyond belief" in favor of the allies .
According to centuur's classification of -4 meaning extreme pro-allied.
quote:

ORIGINAL: Centuur
On a scale of -4 (extreme pro Allied) to +4 (extreme pro Axis), I've made this list. But I expect a lot of people to think different about this...

Emphasis on the last sentence .
I think calculating any such list should get into the + (pro-axis), if I can believe a friend of mine who is a real WiF Guru (attending WiF Cons, designing scenarios and even WiF Master edition).
Except maybe if some exotic options are also used that very rarely make it into a game...

(in reply to pzgndr)
Post #: 19
RE: Unfair and Fair - 7/31/2018 7:32:21 PM   
pzgndr

 

Posts: 2495
Joined: 3/18/2004
From: Maryland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TeaLeaf
You calculated the values from Centuur into the optional rules sets. Interesting. I think some of those values are a bit off, if the advanced set gets to -22, which should read as "broken beyond belief" in favor of the allies .


I was surprised by the results, tentative as they are. I did not expect such pro-Allied bias overall. The spreadsheet is set up such that changes to the individual rankings will copy to the rules sets and then get summed. So folks can make adjustments and see what effect they have.

brian brian offers good insights. Experienced players have their preferences for various reasons, and realism and historical accuracy are important. If the options are so skewed towards Allies then Axis should rarely win, but I don't think that's the case?

I have my own interests looking forward to eventually playing the Fascist Tide campaign with computer opponent, and curious about the play balance with the proposed optional rule set. I suppose others are also curious about "fairness", hence this topic. Again, the whole idea is just to get a sense of how selected options may or may not be biasing the game. It's interesting.

(in reply to TeaLeaf)
Post #: 20
RE: Unfair and Fair - 7/31/2018 8:13:40 PM   
Centuur


Posts: 8089
Joined: 6/3/2011
From: Hoorn (NED).
Status: offline
Thing is, that if you play the game without any optional rules in it, it is a pro Axis game IMHO. So most optional rules somehow favor the Allies.

And to be fair: who wants to play the game without oil, motorized movement points, and partisans? All things which makes the game more difficult for the Axis but you don't want to play without. Some also put in Limited overseas supply too as a rule which they believe they can't play without.

But since almost everyone wants to play which these optionals, the game seems to be balanced at that point somehow...


_____________________________

Peter

(in reply to pzgndr)
Post #: 21
RE: Unfair and Fair - 8/1/2018 2:13:15 AM   
rkr1958


Posts: 14652
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline
There's a related and interesting thread over at BGG, WiF forum: https://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/1992678/ce-advice-my-tentative-list-optional-rules

In this thread there's mention of 5 "mandatory" optional rules at WiFCon. Basically, these 5 optional rules must be played if ANY player wanted to play with them. The remaining optional rules were played only if ALL players wanted to play with them.

The five "mandatory" optional rules were:

1. Partisans.
2. O-Chits.
3. Compulsory Japanese USSR Peace.
4. Emergency HQ Support.
5. Motorized Movement Costs.

I find it interesting that oil or saving resources aren't included. For me, these two optional rules would be at the top of the must have list.

< Message edited by rkr1958 -- 8/1/2018 2:17:30 AM >


_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to Centuur)
Post #: 22
RE: Unfair and Fair - 8/1/2018 4:54:59 PM   
TeaLeaf


Posts: 388
Joined: 11/5/2014
Status: offline
Nice thread you linked to, Ronnie.
Well, so many different versions and players, so many different preferences, it seems .

Darn! I didn't realize CE was so different from FE . Apart from the goodies, ofc...
But I'm not going to buy CE. Sorry ADG. I've bought WiF 3 times over now and I bought the FE because I thought it's FINAL. LoL, any1? Go ahead and rub it in .

Oh, and I like what Bruce Jurin said: stick to 1d10 if you have trouble stopping Barbarossa.
On the other hand though, what fun is it knowing you can stop Barbarossa 1d10 while knowing all your friends play 2d10. Kind of a ruined party if you ask me. Better learn to adopt 2d10 then >.<

A 'final' note: the only 'unfair' thing in WiF, I think, is that it is pro-axis indeed, compared to historical war. Allied production capacity is lower, Axis (Italy!) production capacity is higher, German supply nightmares in Russia are non-existent, French Army is smaller, etc. etc.
But: to me all that is OK, since the simulation factor in this game is still high enough. When it comes to WWII-games, I like a higher simulation factor. For example, to me, 'Axis and Allies' is a 100% game 0% simulation, WiF is more like 50% simulation 50% game.

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 23
RE: Unfair and Fair - 8/1/2018 11:25:19 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 14652
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TeaLeaf
Allied production capacity is lower,
I thought a bit about this and allied production being lower, especially the US, might actual result in more realistic production. During the war the US completed 24 Essex class carriers and 4 Iowa class battleships. In my current game I've built only 5 Essex class carriers and 3 Iowa class battleships and it's May/June 1945. In (M)WiF, the allied player knows that their "simulated" universe will end at midnight, August 31, 1945 (unless one is playing with extended game length). As such, they stop all ship builds from the keel up sometime in early to mid 1943. That would be a lot of extra BP's going to men, planes and tanks from 1943 on if the allies got their historical production. So, I feel reducing allied production below the historical is a counter to the fact that the allies tend to stop building new ships in 1943.

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to TeaLeaf)
Post #: 24
RE: Unfair and Fair - 8/2/2018 1:03:20 AM   
jboldt007


Posts: 205
Joined: 4/20/2017
From: Canada
Status: offline
My 2 cents as a newbie - ultimately the core of a competitive game is the bid. The experienced player would know what to bid depending on what is in play. Having said that... so far ... to me.... carpet bombing is too powerful (or not limited enough it’s is usage), whereas ground strike should, at high odds, should be able to destroy disorganized or out of supply air units. The allies used ground strikes to destroy the German jets. But anyway, it all works - what be your bid?

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 25
RE: Unfair and Fair - 8/2/2018 3:19:22 AM   
brian brian

 

Posts: 2923
Joined: 11/16/2005
Status: offline
Good job jboldt007, it took a new player to recall the key balancing mechanism: Bids. So many players skip that as they just want to get a game going with the side/MP they want to play - more important than worrying about losing the desired MP to the bidding process.

re: Italian WiF production - look through the Light Cruiser counters for some perspective on what historical Italy did with it’s steel plate production. Also, consider how many INF/GARR/MIL Italy fielded and lost in North Africa and Russia, and how much they contributed to garrisoning Yugoslavia.

Just as the Allies can essentially replace Essex CVs with cheaper land-based twin-engine FTR3, Italy can instead invest it all in the Jr. Luftwaffia and defend the Med and pummel the Russian front lines with far more bombers than Il Duce ever built. Is that fair? The players have both knowledge of the fixed time period and info on which choices are rewarded in the combat resolution systems of the rules.

(in reply to jboldt007)
Post #: 26
RE: Unfair and Fair - 8/2/2018 6:36:12 AM   
Centuur


Posts: 8089
Joined: 6/3/2011
From: Hoorn (NED).
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian

Good job jboldt007, it took a new player to recall the key balancing mechanism: Bids. So many players skip that as they just want to get a game going with the side/MP they want to play - more important than worrying about losing the desired MP to the bidding process.

re: Italian WiF production - look through the Light Cruiser counters for some perspective on what historical Italy did with it’s steel plate production. Also, consider how many INF/GARR/MIL Italy fielded and lost in North Africa and Russia, and how much they contributed to garrisoning Yugoslavia.

Just as the Allies can essentially replace Essex CVs with cheaper land-based twin-engine FTR3, Italy can instead invest it all in the Jr. Luftwaffia and defend the Med and pummel the Russian front lines with far more bombers than Il Duce ever built. Is that fair? The players have both knowledge of the fixed time period and info on which choices are rewarded in the combat resolution systems of the rules.


The Italians contributed a lot to garrisons in occupied countries. Apart from Yugoslavia, they were also present with a large force in Greece and in a lesser extent in occupied France and the Low countries too.
I don't think the Italian production capability is to high. It's balanced perfectly by not having enough resources to fill the all the Euroaxis factories in the early days of the war...

And of course jboldt007 is right. It's the bidding which is the big balancer of the game. We do indeed tend to forget about this one, and it's a pity that that part isn't coded in MWIF at the moment.

< Message edited by Centuur -- 8/2/2018 6:38:12 AM >


_____________________________

Peter

(in reply to brian brian)
Post #: 27
RE: Unfair and Fair - 8/2/2018 1:29:07 PM   
pzgndr

 

Posts: 2495
Joined: 3/18/2004
From: Maryland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Centuur
It's the bidding which is the big balancer of the game. We do indeed tend to forget about this one, and it's a pity that that part isn't coded in MWIF at the moment.


A bid is inherently quantitative, which presumes that a player can more or less assess the net worth or value of the options selected for play balance. What is fair? Which then leads to, what is a reasonable bid?

I'm curious why the base game without any options may be so biased as pro-Axis, which then requires a strong pro-Allied handicap bias to compensate. Regardless, it might be nice to better quantify the various options and somehow code values and bids into the game. I'm somewhat surprised WiF players haven't scrutinized all this before, or if they have what conclusions they reached. Very interesting!

(in reply to Centuur)
Post #: 28
RE: Unfair and Fair - 8/2/2018 3:39:16 PM   
TeaLeaf


Posts: 388
Joined: 11/5/2014
Status: offline
I'm not sure why Vanilla-WiF would be pro-Axis, since I've heard differently.
Well, not exactly, since I heard WiF with all/most options 'on' is too much in favor of the Axis, but that implies that Vanilla-WiF would be more balanced... I guess that is also because people have difficulties recognising their favorite options as biased.

But Yes, the bidding is THE 'balancing factor' of WiF that I like: with that, you can win the game even if you would have lost if playing it out till the end.

That is what I like most to see in WWII-games: perfectly imbalanced, but both sides still can win 'because they did better than history'.

(in reply to pzgndr)
Post #: 29
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> WIF School >> Unfair and Fair Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.182