Comparison with WiF 4/5 ?

[MarshalNay]

I'm considering purchasing this game. I've played WiF 4 the board game many years ago. Looking at the screenshots, units, AARs etc. available on this forum, it looks like a substantially different game. Is there a summary of the differences between the board and computer versions anywhere?

Also, I'm wondering if the computer version preserves realistic strategic options, like Sealion, deferring Axis attack on the Russians, Axis going strong in N. Africa and the Med, the Rommel scenario of marching to Iraq, etc.

[Courtenay]

MWiF is based on WiF RAW 7. The differences between MWiF and RAW 7 can be written down on less than a page. The one big difference is that whole map is done at the European scale.

Other differences between MWiF and RAW 7 are that entry chits now have an infinite supply, as do partisans, and partisans are rolled for independently. Also CVPs on land may only fly transfer missions. (This last is a change that most players have retrofitted to RAW 7.) There are a bunch of small differences, most caused by the change in map scale, and a few caused by going to a computer rather than over-the-board.

The differences you are seeing between MWiF and what you remember are the differences between RAW 7 and RAW 4.

[brian brian]

4th Edition WiF was quite different from what became 'Final' edition and Rules version 7, which led to MWiF.

4th Edition I think saw the first beginnings of named ship counters, for example, but BBs were still 2 / counter. Right around the time 4th edition transitioned to 5th is when the first "expansion" kit appeared - Planes in Flames. Also, 4th Edition only had a very small set of division counters, and not for every Major Power.

The strategic options for the players have always been the same in all editions of World in Flames. Japan can explore a land war in north Asia. Russia can attack the Middle East. Germany can ignore the Mediterranean and make an even more fierce Barbarossa attack (a dangerous strategy for the Allies to deal with). Or, Germany can seal the Mediterranean before turning to attack the Russians a year later. MWiF preserves all of that strategic flexibility.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: MarshalNay

I'm considering purchasing this game. I've played WiF 4 the board game many years ago. Looking at the screenshots, units, AARs etc. available on this forum, it looks like a substantially different game. Is there a summary of the differences between the board and computer versions anywhere?

Also, I'm wondering if the computer version preserves realistic strategic options, like Sealion, deferring Axis attack on the Russians, Axis going strong in N. Africa and the Med, the Rommel scenario of marching to Iraq, etc.

warspite1

I got into WIF in the mid 1990's and purchased the 5th Edition. I got it for Christmas during the summer and so had a long wait to actually play the game. While waiting Planes in Flames came out and shortly after, Ships in Flames appeared! So I've always played with PiF and played very little without SiF. The differences for me are therefore probably less than they would have been playing vanilla 5th Edition.

I seem to recall that HQ were 1-factor units so HQ could stack with two land units. I also seem to recall CONV counters were simply placed on map rather than treated as ships with a range. I think there was a rule where in the first impulse only, the non-phasing player could intercept moving naval units. I can't think of too much else that was different but then we are talking almost 25-years ago.

What I do recall when playing MWIF for the first time was that the feel of the game remained very much the same. Yes individual rules may have changed or been tweeked, but WIF is still WIF.

Therefore if you enjoyed 4th Edition, I wouldn't have any fears that you won't enjoy MWIF.

[MarshalNay]

Thanks gang for all the helpful feedback. I think all of the speculations about how WiF 4 (= WAR 4?) are correct: DIVs only for a few Majors (US CW Japan maybe Russia), CONVs are abstract, etc.).

What caused me concern was seeing naval units depicted as individual ships, plane types in AC units, and the (optional) AT/artillery units, which made me think the game had gone more tactical, requiring still more micromanagement.

I think I'll treat myself to MWiF as soon as I get enough free time to play... watch for me in Opponents Wanted.

[TrogusP96]

What is the difference between latest patch of MWiF and the latest print WiF on the ADG website and expansions and the Vassal version they are offering?

[Courtenay]

MWiF is WiF 7, except for using single scale maps, and a few very minor rules changes. The most recent ADG version is WiF 8, with many changes. WiF 5 was so long ago I don't remember what was in it.

[Ian R]

ORIGINAL: Courtenay

MWiF is WiF 7, except for using single scale maps, and a few very minor rules changes. The most recent ADG version is WiF 8, with many changes. WiF 5 was so long ago I don't remember what was in it.

I first had a copy of WiF in about 1988 - possibly second edition.


I first played WiF (3rd edition) combined with the first edition of DoD*, at a convention in Canberra circa ... 1990 or therabouts. [*a set of rough print components - may possibly have been a late playtest.]


It was after 3Edn that the expansions arrived - planes & ships, Afrika, Asia, Convoys, Cruisers, Carriers, Mechs, America etc etc etc. At one time I had a lot of these but in the end I sold the lot for want of space.


On of my old opponents once commented that before planes in flames, the game was very elegant - the German early war TACs had high strike values that generated, in concert with use of the blitz result, their early land victories. The impulse rules limited axis activities without the need for complex oil rules. He reckoned what followed with 4th edn and following was less playable and overburdened with detail that detracted from the core playability.

Interestingly, by not using most options, you can peel the onion back to 3rd edition (in terms of scale) in many ways, or at least close to it. Having now bought the game, and once there is an AI patch in a few years time, I intend to do just that.

I am concerned though that some posters say they add more resources to the map to avoid some sort of loop-crash - is that still a thing?

[Courtenay]

ORIGINAL: Ian R

I am concerned though that some posters say they add more resources to the map to avoid some sort of loop-crash - is that still a thing?

I believe that was only a problem with the Barbarossa scenario, where a lot of the map is out of play, and I think it has been fixed. Certainly none of the AAR's are reporting the problem.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Ian R

ORIGINAL: Courtenay

MWiF is WiF 7, except for using single scale maps, and a few very minor rules changes. The most recent ADG version is WiF 8, with many changes. WiF 5 was so long ago I don't remember what was in it.

I first had a copy of WiF in about 1988 - possibly second edition.


I first played WiF (3rd edition) combined with the first edition of DoD*, at a convention in Canberra circa ... 1990 or therabouts. [*a set of rough print components - may possibly have been a late playtest.]


It was after 3Edn that the expansions arrived - planes & ships, Afrika, Asia, Convoys, Cruisers, Carriers, Mechs, America etc etc etc. At one time I had a lot of these but in the end I sold the lot for want of space.


On of my old opponents once commented that before planes in flames, the game was very elegant - the German early war TACs had high strike values that generated, in concert with use of the blitz result, their early land victories. The impulse rules limited axis activities without the need for complex oil rules. He reckoned what followed with 4th edn and following was less playable and overburdened with detail that detracted from the core playability.

Interestingly, by not using most options, you can peel the onion back to 3rd edition (in terms of scale) in many ways, or at least close to it. Having now bought the game, and once there is an AI patch in a few years time, I intend to do just that.

I am concerned though that some posters say they add more resources to the map to avoid some sort of loop-crash - is that still a thing?

The Barbarossa resource problem has been fixed. Actually, it was a bug newly created in late 2019 when I was getting NetPlay to work. Like far too many changes in software, correcting old bugs can produce new ones.

Those older versions of WIF used 6 sided dice. The change to 10 sided dice had dramatic effects.

[pzgndr]

ORIGINAL: Ian R
Interestingly, by not using most options, you can peel the onion back to 3rd edition (in terms of scale) in many ways, or at least close to it. Having now bought the game, and once there is an AI patch in a few years time, I intend to do just that.

Unfortunately, the planned AI is supposed to run under a defined set of options. Not sure why there can't be selections for the three different standard options sets. It would be nice to have a choice between a simpler game and a more complex game, for those of us still waiting for a computer opponent.

[Ian R]

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

ORIGINAL: Ian R
Interestingly, by not using most options, you can peel the onion back to 3rd edition (in terms of scale) in many ways, or at least close to it. Having now bought the game, and once there is an AI patch in a few years time, I intend to do just that.

Unfortunately, the planned AI is supposed to run under a defined set of options. Not sure why there can't be selections for the three different standard options sets. It would be nice to have a choice between a simpler game and a more complex game, for those of us still waiting for a computer opponent.

As Steve said, there are mechanical changes to the basic rules in later editions, so the game can only be stripped back in terms of unit scale, i.e. to not use, planes, ships/cruisers, artillery brigades, etc.

I guess the AI has to appeal to the greatest proportion of players. If the option set has to be fixed so that it works well, then that is more important than having option variability. I don't know if reducing the options in play would make it any easier to program, but expect a lot of people want planes/ships etc.

[pzgndr]

ORIGINAL: Ian R
As Steve said, there are mechanical changes to the basic rules in later editions, so the game can only be stripped back in terms of unit scale, i.e. to not use, planes, ships/cruisers, artillery brigades, etc.

I guess the AI has to appeal to the greatest proportion of players. If the option set has to be fixed so that it works well, then that is more important than having option variability. I don't know if reducing the options in play would make it any easier to program, but expect a lot of people want planes/ships etc.

We all want a working AI when it comes, so if a single core set is necessary to do that then so be it. Here's the tentative list Steve provided a couple years ago:

My tentative list for the Core Rule Set for the AI Opponent is:

1. Divisions (2)
2. Artillery (3)
3. Fortifications (5)
4. Supply units (6)
5. Combat engineers (7)
6. Construction engineers (7)
7. Flying boats (8)
8. Territorial units (10)
9. Limited overseas supply (11)
10. Limited supply across straits (12)
11. HQ support (13)
13. Synthetic oil plants (14)
15. Bottomed ships (18)
16. In the presence of the enemy (19)
17. Surface combat ship transports (25)
18. Amphibious rules (26)
19. Optional carrier planes searching (27)
20. Pilots (28)
21. Food in flames (29)
22. Factory construction (30)
23. Saving resources (31)
25. Tank busters (33)
26. Motorized movement rates (34)
27. Bombers as air transports (35)
28. Large air transports (36)
30. Defensive shore bombardment (38)
31. Blitz bonus (39)
32. Chinese attack weakness (40)
33. Fractional odds (41)
34. Allied combat friction (42)
35. Two 10 sided dice land combat results table (43)
36. Extended aircraft rebasing (44)
37. Variable reorganization costs (45)
38. Partisans (46)
39. Oil rules (48)
41. Twin engine bombers (53)
42. Fighter-bombers (54)
43. Outclassed fighters (55); renamed as Backup Fighters
44. Carrier planes (56)
45. Internment (58)
46. Offensive chits (61)
47. Ski troops (65)
48. The Queens (66)
49. Siberians (68)
50. Chinese warlords (71)
51. Cruisers in Flames (75)
52. Off city reinforcement (15)

xx Additional Chinese Cities
xx Breaking the Nazi-Soviet Pact

Optional rules that are currently implemented that would be excluded are:
12. Emergency HQ supply (13)
14. HQ movement (17)
24. Carpet bombing (32)
29. Railway movement (37)
40. Night missions (52)

xx Scrap Units
xx Unlimited Breakdown
xx Extended Game

The thing is that a simpler game as you suggest without divisions and oil rules and such (i.e., using the Novice optional rules set) will not be possible with the AI opponent. I realize that many combinations and permutations of 50+ options will not work, but it sure would be nice to choose between Novice/Standard/Advanced rule sets. Maybe down the road, Steve might consider AI Part II that could allow this? Sure would be nice...