Your Favourite Theatre/Front in the game

[Vanman]

There are many fronts that are absolutely fascinating. Probably the least interesting would be the German move west into Belgium, Holland and France. The invasion of Poland is also very routine with virtually no real flexibility.

Obviously the War in the Pacific, Eastern Front and Battle of the Atlantic stand out in terms of scale, importance and sheer action. Probably my favourite is the Mediterranean front. Once Italy enters its becomes extremely tense, with each each side fighting out what is largely a 50/50 fight for a significant time. The battles for temporary sea and air supremacy are really tough, with the ebb and flow amazing up until 1943. Its always difficult, never easy.

Anyone else have particular theatres they tend to prefer? If so, why?

[Angeldust2]

You did not mention the Soviet-Japan conflict/front, which I consider the most game shaping. I tend to think, the actions/inaction of Soviet and Japan players to each other decide mainly about the gneral flow of a given game.

I agree on the Med campaign being very interesting in this game for both sides. However, if you experience still ebb and flow up until 1943 in this area, I would assess, the Axis is having the upper hand in that game.

You characterise Fall Gelb, the German move to the West as the least interesting. I think differently, I feel it offers a lot of nail-biting tension and is by far not a walkover, as the Germans are on a very tight timetable, whatever their ambitions for the rest of the game are. There is a lot of variable game play possible for the Allies in the West.

[Centuur]

China is my favorite front. That's because it's always different.

Pesky partisans, running CAV, the ever present debate to attack or not to attack, together with the fact that both sides lack enough units to make a solid front, makes it a real challenge.

[warspite1]

Anyone else have particular theatres they tend to prefer? If so, why?

warspite1

The naval war - particularly, but not limited to, the Pacific.

I've mentioned before that I came across World In Flames in it's 5th Edition, and before I had started playing, Planes in Flames came out. Well this was a pretty special development, and World In Flames quickly become the only game I played. Then, not long after, Ships In Flames came out...... Wow!! Light cruisers followed on from this.

A strategic level game, and yet just about every ship (and what-ifs) in World War II represented?? That's madness. Love it, love it love it.

[Orm]

Currently my favourite campaign is the Spanish one. Both sides.

I suspect that a Turkish campaign would fast make it to the top, if I ever got to play it.

[Vanman]

You did not mention the Soviet-Japan conflict/front, which I consider the most game shaping. I tend to think, the actions/inaction of Soviet and Japan players to each other decide mainly about the gneral flow of a given game.

I agree on the Med campaign being very interesting in this game for both sides. However, if you experience still ebb and flow up until 1943 in this area, I would assess, the Axis is having the upper hand in that game.

You characterise Fall Gelb, the German move to the West as the least interesting. I think differently, I feel it offers a lot of nail-biting tension and is by far not a walkover, as the Germans are on a very tight timetable, whatever their ambitions for the rest of the game are. There is a lot of variable game play possible for the Allies in the West.

The Soviet-Japan conflict is certainly game shaping. In fact it was the leading factor of games ending too early as either the Soviets or Japanese would become too crippled/weakened and basically pre-ordain the outcome (making it distinctly less fun). We instituted a house rule where the border garrison would be 6:1 in 1939, 5:1 in 1940 etc which made a garrison of at least 3 armies mandatory (the Russians have enough cities in Asia to cause this to still be a threat for Japan) . This improved the situation dramatically and made this war arise at a more interesting, later time.

Gelb is tense I grant that, and you are right, its not easy. The French want to drag it out as long as possible and FORCE Germany to use an offensive chit (which is virtually mandatory against competent play) as you don't want them to use two against the USSR. Obviously land units are priority for defense, yet one time I tried being a bit more competitive in the air by buying Fighters but they just ended up getting blown out of the sky based on the quality differential. I find the best thing to utilize are anti-tank units while defending in depth so as to minimize breakthroughs. Of course you have to keep one eye on the Italian front (just have enough to hold in the mountains) and a move into Tunisia from Libya. With the Germans, stuka's, concentrated armor with the anti-air units right behind it to keep the RAF tentative tends to work well. They you sweat out the die rolls and hope to break through some place, which is usually just south of the Ardennes and west of the Maginot where the French are almost forced to be a bit weaker as its further way for Paris.

[Vanman]

China is my favorite front. That's because it's always different.

Pesky partisans, running CAV, the ever present debate to attack or not to attack, together with the fact that both sides lack enough units to make a solid front, makes it a real challenge.

Its definitely fluid and tricky and very different from most fronts. The difference is that Japan's headaches are a real nuisance (that can get seriously out of control) while China's are potentially fatal. The China blitzkrieg vs assault is always a difficult decision too, depending on circumstances.

To play China well I find 'timing' really important. Orderly withdrawals and not waiting too long or evacuating too quickly is key. You want to be stubborn, but not too stubborn. Difficult balancing act. The weather is particularly important here as you have the alternating good weather in the south, bad weather in the north, and the inverse happening seasonally. Its a very tough but fun slog.

[Vanman]

Anyone else have particular theatres they tend to prefer? If so, why?

warspite1

The naval war - particularly, but not limited to, the Pacific.

I've mentioned before that I came across World In Flames in it's 5th Edition, and before I had started playing, Planes in Flames came out. Well this was a pretty special development, and World In Flames quickly become the only game I played. Then, not long after, Ships In Flames came out...... Wow!! Light cruisers followed on from this.

A strategic level game, and yet just about every ship (and what-ifs) in World War II represented?? That's madness. Love it, love it love it.

Love your enthusiasm, and I share it. Its silly but I bet most players (like me) have their favorite ships based on the name or historical significance, rather than actual potency. If the Barham or Resolution get sunk, ah whatever. If you sink the Hood, Nelson or Rodney...damnit! Love the individual ship names too, as well as the aircraft models. It just adds flavor. I am sure if the German Panzer units (divisions) said 'Tiger' or 'Panther' it may have a similar effect (though obviously not realistic).

I have never used the option 'Cruisers in Flames' as I have read it tilts the naval situation too much towards the Allies (would make things less precarious for the RN in particular which is less interesting. Without it you have to pick 'where' and 'how much' very carefully). Since you are a big naval fan, what are your thoughts on this? Seeing the Ajax and Exeter in action would be fun.

How about optional rules? I love 'Limited Overseas Supply' as it forces action, particularly in the Med. I have never utilized 'Rough Seas' or the 'In the Presence of the Enemy'. I am starting to think the latter would be beneficial. Any thoughts here? Thanks Warspite (your fav ship presumably).

[Angeldust2]

I have never used the option 'Cruisers in Flames' as I have read it tilts the naval situation too much towards the Allies (would make things less precarious for the RN in particular which is less interesting.
How about optional rules? I love 'Limited Overseas Supply' as it forces action, particularly in the Med. I have never utilized 'Rough Seas' or the 'In the Presence of the Enemy'. I am starting to think the latter would be beneficial.

Absolutely. CLiF dysbalances the game for no gain, making the whole naval challenge less interesting.
ITPOTE otoh leads to more small scale naval encounters, which is interesting.

[Courtenay]

For a long time I did not use In the Presence of the Enemy. Eventually I realized that BOTH the Japanese and the US want it. Without it, deep naval raids are possible for both sides that just don't feel right. Neither side routinely pushed deep into enemy held waters with surface vessels.

There are some optional rules that I never use. Construction Engineers is just a pure pile of aggravation for everyone. HQ movement seems to me to be designed to drive the Chinese player out of his mind. I use AMPHS, which requires SCS invasions, or the Japanese player would go out his mind. I do not us Variable Carrier Plane Searching, because it strikes me as very ahistorical. It mainly benefits the Japanese, who mainly used cruiser float planes for search, not carrier planes. I like limited supply across straights, but do not use it, because the way MWiF interprets the rule when using it and Limited Overseas Supply can cut Sicily off from oil when it really should not be cut off (in my opinion). I also do not use the backup FTR rule, because in my games the really bad fighters go away after a while, and the effect of outnumber the enemy, given more or less equal fighters, is about the same no matter the fighter quality.

[warspite1]

Anyone else have particular theatres they tend to prefer? If so, why?

warspite1

The naval war - particularly, but not limited to, the Pacific.

I've mentioned before that I came across World In Flames in it's 5th Edition, and before I had started playing, Planes in Flames came out. Well this was a pretty special development, and World In Flames quickly become the only game I played. Then, not long after, Ships In Flames came out...... Wow!! Light cruisers followed on from this.

A strategic level game, and yet just about every ship (and what-ifs) in World War II represented?? That's madness. Love it, love it love it.

Its silly but I bet most players (like me) have their favorite ships based on the name or historical significance, rather than actual potency. If the Barham or Resolution get sunk, ah whatever. If you sink the Hood, Nelson or Rodney...damnit! Love the individual ship names too, as well as the aircraft models. It just adds flavor. I am sure if the German Panzer units (divisions) said 'Tiger' or 'Panther' it may have a similar effect (though obviously not realistic).

warspite1

Hi Vanman, I don't think its silly - and I suspect you are right for many. I suspect there will always be some who don't care about this aspect in a wargame, and simply look at units in terms of the ability to get the job done (and that is fine). But I suspect they are in the minority and one of the reasons I think PiF and, in particular, SiF is so loved is that you have identifable units - and that helps with immersion.

The planes aren't generic fighter or fighter-bomber or bomber counters. They are individual aircraft types, camoflagued and full colour silhouettes - an inspired idea for a strategic game. With ships of course, its even better as we get individually named ships.

Like you my 'favourites' aren't necessarily based on potency, but come from a deep love of the naval aspect of the war, and reading about the various ships that took part.

Yes HMS Warspite is my favourite ship. I made an Airfix model of her when I was a little boy and was struck by her mix of modern superstructure (loved the large bridge structure the RN adopted in the thirties) and World War I era hull shape. The fact that she was involved in just about every theatre helped too.

There are plenty of other ships and ship classes too that I love to 'play' with (and hate to see sunk) - mostly Royal Navy for obvious reasons - but other navies too. The South Dakotas are the only battleships to even begin to compare with the three modernised Queen Elizabeths (though Valiant and Queen Elizabeth are not quite up to Warspite standard). The SoDaks just look like thugs - with lots of firepower on a relatively small surface.

HMS Hood, and to a lesser extent, the Littorios and Scharnhorsts, are very pretty ships. They are slim, poised, graceful and certainly know how to mind their P's and Q's and behave in polite company - but the modernised Queen Elizabeths and South Dakotas combine elements of pretty with sheer beauty; they are ladies with a past (Warspite) or new kids on the block (South Dakota), but either way, they know how to handle themselves in all situations and don't take any nonsense.

Fortunately HMS Warspite can't be sunk (and anyone who says they have sunk her is frankly lying - FACT) so that proves how realistic World In Flames is.

[warspite1]

Anyone else have particular theatres they tend to prefer? If so, why?

warspite1

The naval war - particularly, but not limited to, the Pacific.

I've mentioned before that I came across World In Flames in it's 5th Edition, and before I had started playing, Planes in Flames came out. Well this was a pretty special development, and World In Flames quickly become the only game I played. Then, not long after, Ships In Flames came out...... Wow!! Light cruisers followed on from this.

A strategic level game, and yet just about every ship (and what-ifs) in World War II represented?? That's madness. Love it, love it love it.

I have never used the option 'Cruisers in Flames' as I have read it tilts the naval situation too much towards the Allies (would make things less precarious for the RN in particular which is less interesting. Without it you have to pick 'where' and 'how much' very carefully). Since you are a big naval fan, what are your thoughts on this? Seeing the Ajax and Exeter in action would be fun.

warspite1

When playing with others of course, there has to be give and take as far as the optionals are concerned. But I will always try and get Cruisers in Flames into the game. Playing solo then there is simply no question that this option is included.

So many famous ships, with wonderful war records (Orion), beautiful names (Phoebe), or just simply great looking ships (Perth), would not take part without that option.

I don't actually give a stuff about the play balance - having those ships available and not using them is actually a war crime - FACT.

[warspite1]

Anyone else have particular theatres they tend to prefer? If so, why?

warspite1

The naval war - particularly, but not limited to, the Pacific.

I've mentioned before that I came across World In Flames in it's 5th Edition, and before I had started playing, Planes in Flames came out. Well this was a pretty special development, and World In Flames quickly become the only game I played. Then, not long after, Ships In Flames came out...... Wow!! Light cruisers followed on from this.

A strategic level game, and yet just about every ship (and what-ifs) in World War II represented?? That's madness. Love it, love it love it.

How about optional rules? I love 'Limited Overseas Supply' as it forces action, particularly in the Med. I have never utilized 'Rough Seas' or the 'In the Presence of the Enemy'. I am starting to think the latter would be beneficial. Any thoughts here? Thanks Warspite (your fav ship presumably).

warspite1

Yes to Limited Overseas Supply and In the Presence of the Enemy. I can't recall ever using Rough Seas.

[Courtenay]

Its silly but I bet most players (like me) have their favorite ships based on the name or historical significance, rather than actual potency. If the Barham or Resolution get sunk, ah whatever. If you sink the Hood, Nelson or Rodney...damnit! Love the individual ship names too, as well as the aircraft models. It just adds flavor. I am sure if the German Panzer units (divisions) said 'Tiger' or 'Panther' it may have a similar effect (though obviously not realistic).

warspite1

Hi Vanman, I don't think its silly - and I suspect you are right for many. I suspect there will always be some who don't care about this aspect in a wargame, and simply look at units in terms of the ability to get the job done (and that is fine). But I suspect they are in the minority and one of the reasons I think PiF and, in particular, SiF is so loved is that you have identifable units - and that helps with immersion.

You can see my favorite ship in my avatar. Just last night I was contemplating what were the most important ships in the history of the US Navy. I reluctantly came to the conclusion that Enterprise was second, behind Monitor, since Monitor singlehandedly prevented total disaster in the Civil War. Both easily beat out Bonhomme Richard and Constitution.

[Orm]

HQ movement seems to me to be designed to drive the Chinese player out of his mind.

I have grown to love the HQ movement option as the Chinese player. Best option ever as Chinese if you play with the extra cities. In my humble opinion, of course.