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.
Basically it's a question what game computer-wif shall be. As a cosim it should not have fog of war.
If it is intended to be warcraft (which is a great game) with numbered counters - ok. but then harry won't be happy with giving the license. and i would not play it.
therefore i would prefer intelligence to be included as an optional as it is in RAW.
Well, the issue is slightly different. A form of fog of war is already programmed into the CWIF "legacy code". It is currently conceptually distinct from the intelligence option #63.
Steve H. (MWIF developer) has already stated his intention to implement a long list of WIF options that includes option 63. So the current expectation is that will be available as part of MWIF.
Steve has also stated his intention to implement CWIF's fog of war as an additional option in MWIF. The question is exactly how should that work. The legacy implementation has some question marks.
The most likely course of events is that Steve will implement intelligence & FOW as completely separate options. My (somewhat troublemaking) counter-suggestion was that we should consider using the concepts developed option 63 as we consider exactly how the FOW option should work.
I thought from day one that MWiF may begin to depart from WiF in some ways as a result of computerization. As long as we work out where the changes are beneficial it will be a positive development. Fog of War makes for better wargames IMHO as it is more realistic. Once we work out the bugs, I think it will be hugely enjoyable to play using this option. Even the flawed FOW in CWiF made things very interesting and prevented gamey tactics.
I posted this earlier in a nice layout - this is just a crude copy. You can find the pretty one under Scenarios, Options, and Addons: post #114. That is an old thread in this forum (currently on page 3, I believe) and it has a lot of posts concerning optional rules. I am providing this repeat post just to facilitate discussion.
================================================
Here is the final decision on what add-ons and optional rules will and will not be included in MWIF Product 1.
MWIF Product 1 will include the add-ons:
Africa Aflame
Asia Aflame
Carrier Planes in Flames
Convoys in Flames
Cruisers in Flames
Mech in Flames
Planes in Flames
Ships in Flames
*** The Guards banner armies (option 70), and Chinese warlords (option 71) will be included even though technically these are part of Leaders in Flames and Politics in Flames respectively.
MWIF Product 1 will NOT include the add-ons:
Leaders in Flames
America in Flames
Patton in Flames
Politics in Flames
Days of Decision III
Optional Rules
CWIF MWIF 1 Option WIF FE Rules Reference
NA NA 1. African & Scandinavian maps 2.1.1, 2.1.4, 2.4.2
Yes Yes 2. Divisions 2.2, 2.3.1, 9.5, 11.4.5, 11.14, 11.15, 11.16.1, 11.16.5, 22.4.1
Yes Yes 3. Artillery 2.2, 2.3.1, 11.2, 11.5.9, 11.5.10, 11.8, 11.9, 11.11.2, 11.16.4, 11.16.5, 16.1, 16.3, 22.4.2
NA NA 4. Pacific & Asian map ZOCs 2.2
Yes Yes 5. Fortifications 2.3.1, 4.2, 11.16.1, 22.4.9
Yes Yes 6. Supply units 2.3.1, 2.4.2, 11.11.2, 11.12, 22.4.10
Yes Yes 7. Engineers 2.3.1, 11.11.2, 22.2, 22.4.1
Yes Yes 8. Flying boats 2.3.1, 8.2.9
Yes Yes 9. Ships In Flames units 2.3.1, 4.1.4, 4.2, 11.3, 11.5.8, 13.3.2, 13.5.1, 13.6.1, 13.6.5, 14.4.1, 22.4.7
Yes Yes 10. Territorials 11.16.5, 2.4.2, 4.2, 17.3, 18.1, 19.4, 22.4.5
Yes Yes 11. Limited overseas supply 2.4.2, 22.4.11
Yes Yes 12. Limited supply across straits 2.4.2, 11.10, 13.6.1
Yes Yes 13. HQ supply and support 2.4.3, 11.16.3
Yes Yes 14. Synthetic oil plants 4.2, 13.5.1, 22.4.11
Yes Yes 15. Off-city reinforcement 4.2
No Yes 16. Recruitment limits 4.2
Yes Yes 17. HQ movement 11.11.2
Yes Yes 18. Bottomed ships 11.2
Yes Yes 19. In the presence of the enemy 11.4.2
No Yes 20. Surprised ZOCs 2.2
No No 21. Task forces (hidden) 11.4.3
No Yes 22. Bounce combat 14.3.3
Partially Yes 23. V-weapons and Atomic bombs 11.7.1, 11.8
Partially Yes 24. Frogmen 22.4.3
Yes Yes 25. SCS transport 11.4.5, 11.14
Yes Yes 26. Amphibious rules 11.13, 11.14, 22.4.12
Yes Yes 27. Optional CV searching 11.5.5
Yes Yes 28. Pilots 4.2, 11.2, 11.5.8, 11.5.11, 13.6.5, 13.6.7, 13.7.1, 14.6, 19.1, 22.4.19
No Yes 29. Food in Flames 13.6.1
Yes Yes 30. Factory construction and destruction 11.7, 13.6.8, 22.2, 22.4.11
Yes Yes 31. Saving build points and resources 11.7, 13.1, 13.3.2, 13.5.1, 13.6.3, 13.6.8
Yes Yes 32. Carpet bombing 11.8, 14.6
Yes Yes 33. Tank busters 11.9, 11.16.4
Yes Yes 34. Motorized movement rates 11.11.2
Yes Yes 35. Bomber (& no paradrop) ATRs 11.12, 11.15, 11.18.1
Yes Yes 36. Large ATRs 11.12, 11.18.1, 11.18.4
Yes Yes 37. Railway movement bonus 11.11.2
Yes Yes 38. Defensive shore bombardment 11.16.2, 15.1
No Yes 39. Blitz Bonus 11.16.1, 11.16.5
Yes Yes 40. Chinese attack weakness 11.16.5
Yes + Yes + 41. Fractional odds 11.16.5
Yes Yes 42. Allied combat friction 11.16.5
Yes Yes 43. 2D10 Land CRT 11.16.6
Yes Yes 44. Extended aircraft rebasing 11.17
Yes Yes 45. Variable reorganization costs 13.6.3
Yes + Yes + 46. Partisans 13.1, 13.7.4
Yes Yes 47. Isolated reorganization limits 13.5
Yes Yes 48. Oil 5, 13.5.1, 21
No Yes 49. Hitler’s War () 13.3.2
No Yes 50. USSR-Japan compulsory peace 13.7.3
No Yes 51. En-route aircraft interception 14.2.1
Yes Yes 52. Night missions 14.2.1, 14.2.3, 22.4.2
Yes Yes 53. Twin-engined fighters 14.3.2
Yes Yes 54. Fighter-bombers 14.3.2
Yes Yes 55. Outclassed fighters 14.3.2
Yes Yes 56. Carrier planes 4.2, 11.2, 11.5.2, 11.5.8, 11.5.11, 11.18.4, 13.5.1, 13.6.5, 14.3.2, 14.4, 14.4.1, 14.8, 16.2
No Yes 57. Limited aircraft interception 14.2.1
No Yes 58. Internment 14.6.4, 19.1
Partially Yes 59. Flying bombs 14.6, 14.7
Partially Yes 60. Kamikazes 14.6, 14.8
Yes Yes 61. Offensive Chits 16, (16.1 - 16.5)
No Yes 62. The Ukraine 19.12
No Yes 63. Intelligence 22.1
No Yes 64. Japanese command conflict 22.3
Yes Yes 65. Ski troops 22.4.1
Yes Yes 66. The Queens 22.4.4
Mostly Yes 67. City Based Volunteers 4.1.2, 22.4.8
Yes Yes 68. Siberians 22.4.7
Partially Yes 69. Naval supply units 22.4.13
Partially Yes 70. Guards Banner Armies 22.4.14
No Yes 71. Chinese Warlords 22.4.15
No Yes 72. Partisan HQs 22.4.16
Partially No 73. Heavy Weapons Units 22.4.17
Partially No 74. Air Cav 22.4.18
No Yes 75. Cruiser in Flames 13.5.1, 22.4.6
No Yes 76. Convoys in Flames 19.4, 22.4.19
CWIF optional rules that are standard rules in WIF FE and will be standard rules in MWIF 1:
Lend lease,
CV strategic bombing, and
Japanese carrier range.
CWIF optional rules that were discontinued in WIF FE and will not be included in MWIF 1:
Separate die rolls on land combat table,
Territorial conquest, and
Vlassov (replaced by city based volunteers).
CWIF optional rules that are not in WIF FE but will be kept in MWIF 1:
Fog of war,
Limited view of opponent’s production,
Scrap units (play testers requested this be optional to simplify play), and
Facility repair (separated from Option #7 at request of play testers).
Here is Jan's proposal for revised Fog of War rules, and my comments. Again, a lot of the prettiness has been lost when I copied the earlier post.
Jan,
I have rewritten your suggestions replacing the word 'unhidden' with 'known'. I was having trouble keeping things straight when reading it. I also added some color highlights. No offense, I hope.
quote:
====================================================
ORIGINAL: JanSorensen
Category: Fog of War
Severity: Suggestion
ID: JS013
My take on Fog of War (which I doubt I would ever want to play with personally - but still). I have only concerned myself with units on the map - not units in production/repair etc.
Start of turn
Right after the reinforcement stage each unit on the map checks to see if its hidden or known.
If the unit is in a land hex, then it is known if :
- the unit was involved in any combat last turn OR
- the hex is adjacent to an enemy controlled land hex (with or without enemy units) OR
- the hex is adjacent to a sea-area which contains any enemy unit OR
- the hex is within 2 hexes/hexdots of a land hex containing an enemy aircraft
Otherwise the unit is hidden.
If the (non-sub) unit is in a sea-area, it is known if
- the unit was involved in any combat last turn OR
- the sea-area also contains any enemy unit OR
- the sea-area is adjacent to any enemy controlled land hex (with or without enemy units) OR
- the sea-area is adjacent to a sea-area with enemy units
Otherwise the unit is hidden.
If a sub unit is in a sea-area it is hidden unless it took part in a combat last turn.
During the turn
Units will never change from known to hidden during the turn.
A unit will become known immediately if it would have been known at the start of the turn given the present position of units on the map. That is - if at any time a unit fulfills any of the rules that would have made it known at the start of the turn then its immediately known.
If the movement of one of your units cause an enemy unit to become known during the turn then that movement cannot be undone.
Hidden units still show up on the map - but they do not reveal their name, type, size or stats - only a generic land/air/naval icon is shown.
=========================================
I would suggest changing the range for air unit detection to 3 hexes. Otherwise, air units have no additional detection ability unless they are in the front line.
There is the question of what to do about air units that overfly hidden enemy units. If they attack a hex, that act should reveal any hidden units under the condition of the enemy unit was in combat. But how about hidden units in a hex adjacent to the target hex? Do they still remain hidden? Or, if you simply fly a long range bomber out over the entire enemy front line to ground strike a hex at one end, and then come all the way back to return to base at the other end of the frontline? Does that action reveal any hidden units under the flight path?
As for memorizing all the units in the game, that is quite possible, but only about half the time. There are a lot of USSR fighters, but very few battleships. There are a lot of CW battleships, but few Italian. The more unusal the unit type is for a nationality, the easier it will be to identify which unit it is by memorizing unit lists. When a country has a lot of the unit type, it will be quite difficult to be sure what awaits you in the rear areas.
==============
==============
My reply to a Patrice post:
However, I am predisposed to your answer of no additional intel from overflights. My logic here is that the planes often flew high to avoid various types of misery and they would try to fly in a straight line (or a series of straight lines). Sight seeing just wasn't on their agenda. Of course, anything of interest that they saw they reported, but the bombing missions themselves had just one purpose. So their reports were pretty hit and miss.
==============
==============
At the moment i still have problems to imagine how this would function technically.
...
My 2 previous posts should provide a lot of the detail you are looking for concerning Fog of War.
But before I continue. What is a cosim?
The basic idea of FOW as envisioned (double entendre) for MWIF is that you will see all the units on the map and know their basic unit type. You won't know their numbers though. For the air units, that means you won't know for certain which hexes each air unit can reach (bomber attacks, fighter cover), beyond the obvious nearby hexes. For the land units, that means the units in the rear areas will be hidden. For example, if the USSR retreats units that had not been engaged in combat the previous turn (say during the winter months), the German player will have to first move units adjacent to the retreated units to determine their strength. The mechanism I am thinking of using here is to have all the unit specifics be removed from enemy units (they all become blank) and then redraw them based on whether they are hidden or known. Reinforcements that pop up in rear areas will have their details hidden.
The FOW will be minor for heavily engaged forces:
1 - all adjacent units will be known
2 - all units that fought in the previous turn (not impulse) will be known
3 - all units within the extended 'seeing range' of air units will be known
If a front is static (e.g., China, North Africa, Great Britain), then knowledge concerning the enemy will be less. Which seems right.
Anyway, we are just kicking this around and I am open to everyone's thoughts, ideas, comments, and suggestions about FOW.
There is nothing in WIF FE even close, so we are not restricted by history (double entendre) in what we decide for MWIF. It should add to the enjoyment of playing the game - that's the overriding criterion for how to define it. Oh, and it will be optional of course.
Then there is Fred's idea of using Intelligence Points for revealing hidden units.
But should they always? What about units that are adjacent across frontiers, say, pre-Barbarossa for example? Also, sometimes armies were very good at masking their strength. I'm thinking of the Ruskies in 43-45 and the Jerries before the Ardennes Offensive.
But should they always? What about units that are adjacent across frontiers, say, pre-Barbarossa for example? Also, sometimes armies were very good at masking their strength. I'm thinking of the Ruskies in 43-45 and the Jerries before the Ardennes Offensive.
Cheers, Neilster
Using your Ardennes Offensive example, historically the hidden units were very, very close to the front line. In game terms, you merely need to keep them a couple of hexes back - and then move them into the front line to attack. For instance, you can have a few armor + mechanized units in the rear but the opponent doesn't know if they are strong or weak. When you want to go on the offensive, you shuffle the units in the front line and create space for the armor attack. This happens all the time in WIF anyway. The FOW just adds a bit more uncertainty.
Newly arrived reinforcements, or fresh arrivals by rail from another theater of operations could be some 4-3s coming to replace 6-4s that are heading elsewhere. Or they could be 9-4s coming to bust your chops. A little suspense to keep your pulse rate high - especially if it is the AIO shuffling all those units around (what the **** is it doing now?).
Thanks, Shannon for gently clearing the Fog that got in my sights. [:)]
After reading the intended mechanics i slowly start to accept that fog may blur WiF and it still keeps being playable. Slowly. [;)]
A few immediate thoughts:
1. Planes are very important to leading the war offensively and defensively as well. Not knowing their values gives me headeaches even when i just think about it. Things seem to become playing lotto until the props clash.
Idea: What about the rule to keep units combat values (which were visible in the past) visible for as long as they do not change position? Otherwise players could come to the idea of recording the values on sheets of paper to remember them. Same effect but somehow buggy, hm?
2. Having a glue at opponent's production can have a great influence on your own strategy. It should do so if you do not want to be surprised by really nasty things going on.
Idea: What about telling the opponent side the types and numbers (at least gearing limits) of units being built after the production phase?
3. Using full corps/armies to investigate the strength of enemy units sounds like good old Panzer/Allied General to me. As a consequence i may initially like the idea but in WiF the units lack the ability be reduced and refreshed.
One would need much more time to plot gound advances since they become so much more dangerous/there are so many more variables to implement in your thoughts. This would certainly slow down action.
After all i must admit that it could be a way to bring new flavor to our beloved WiF.
Shannon, can you please give us a few hints at what the playtesters say?
A little suspense to keep your pulse rate high - especially if it is the AIO shuffling all those units around (what the **** is it doing now?).
I love the sound of this!
I agree wholeheartedly. WiF's perfect birdseye view of the entire globe never made much sense to me. I recall back in 1986, we resorted to placing upside down paper cups over units a certain distance from the front lines in order to combat this omniscience issue. Although a good effort, it sucked a lot of fun out of the game (not to mention looking ludicrous) to have twenty or thirty cups all over the maps. We abondoned the experiment right about the time I stopped playing.
It's great that MWiF will finally allow this important feature to be realized.
ORIGINAL: Matt242
Shannon, can you please give us a few hints at what the playtesters say?
About Fog of War? That is still in the design stage - only a concept at this point. CWIF had a version of FOW, but it had many problems and shouldn't intrude the new design. So, your ideas on FOW are at least the equal of the beta testers.
when i played WIF house rule was largest land combat unit was on top rest of stack was FOW{fog of war} and only were able to see land combat units when they attacked or not stacked , it worked for us.I like the idea of paying for intell, maybe pay to cover in FOW as well.just my 2 cents
You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life
The basic idea of FOW as envisioned (double entendre) for MWIF is that you will see all the units on the map and know their basic unit type. You won't know their numbers though. For the air units, that means you won't know for certain which hexes each air unit can reach (bomber attacks, fighter cover), beyond the obvious nearby hexes. For the land units, that means the units in the rear areas will be hidden. For example, if the USSR retreats units that had not been engaged in combat the previous turn (say during the winter months), the German player will have to first move units adjacent to the retreated units to determine their strength. The mechanism I am thinking of using here is to have all the unit specifics be removed from enemy units (they all become blank) and then redraw them based on whether they are hidden or known. Reinforcements that pop up in rear areas will have their details hidden.
The FOW will be minor for heavily engaged forces:
1 - all adjacent units will be known
2 - all units that fought in the previous turn (not impulse) will be known
3 - all units within the extended 'seeing range' of air units will be known
If a front is static (e.g., China, North Africa, Great Britain), then knowledge concerning the enemy will be less. Which seems right.
Anyway, we are just kicking this around and I am open to everyone's thoughts, ideas, comments, and suggestions about FOW.
There is nothing in WIF FE even close, so we are not restricted by history (double entendre) in what we decide for MWIF. It should add to the enjoyment of playing the game - that's the overriding criterion for how to define it. Oh, and it will be optional of course.
Then there is Fred's idea of using Intelligence Points for revealing hidden units.
A friend of mine said that he implemented Fog of War in one of his house rules by not allowing opponents to examine the contents of a stack of units until an attack was declared. Players could see the height of an enemy stack, and could see the top unit, but were not allowed to examine the contents of a stack unless they decided to attack it. Merely moving next to a stack of enemy units wouldn't tell the player what was in the stack. Thus, being able to place a particular unit at the top of the stack was important - the player may wish to emphasise strength by placing a strong unit at the top, or may wish to seem weaker by displaying a weak unit.
The only problem came when tall stacks of units fell over... Not a problem that a computer would have.
I suppose that intelligence points could be used to take a peek at some hidden characteristic of a stack, such as showing the strongest or weakest non-visible unit, or revealing the stack's total attack or defense rating, or if intelligence points are rare enough, spending a point is required to allow the entire contents of a stack to be examined.
@Steve
When will the hidden units (ground, frontline) be revealed?
At most tables i played everyone was allowed to take back land moves (after counting for odds ratios but) before declaring land attacks. Sometimes people change their mind when an initial plan does "not survive first contact".
It is question on how "hard" a table plays. We use to allow it so people won't get too fierce at each other. After all we want to have fun.
How will MWiF handle a possible "take back"?
@Steve
When will the hidden units (ground, frontline) be revealed?
At most tables i played everyone was allowed to take back land moves (after counting for odds ratios but) before declaring land attacks. Sometimes people change their mind when an initial plan does "not survive first contact".
It is question on how "hard" a table plays. We use to allow it so people won't get too fierce at each other. After all we want to have fun.
How will MWiF handle a possible "take back"?
Great question.
Also, I cannot count how many times I forgot to fly planes in some theater during naval or ground strike phase because I was so focused on the front line. Many times people need a 'go back' to do things in a phase that they forgot.
All in all, this wont kill a game, but if you were able to take snapshots phase per phase throughout the impulse, you could rewind to the glaring mistake staring you in the face. Frankly not every opponent will be lenient on this matter unless the item is not going to cause more chaos. Just imagine how many people will press the next impulse button and then remember OMG i forgot to fly my key groundstrike on <insert big plan here> in some other theatre.
Has this been hashed out?
Most men can survive adversity, the true test of a man's character is power. -Abraham Lincoln
@Steve
When will the hidden units (ground, frontline) be revealed?
At most tables i played everyone was allowed to take back land moves (after counting for odds ratios but) before declaring land attacks. Sometimes people change their mind when an initial plan does "not survive first contact".
It is question on how "hard" a table plays. We use to allow it so people won't get too fierce at each other. After all we want to have fun.
How will MWiF handle a possible "take back"?
Great question.
Also, I cannot count how many times I forgot to fly planes in some theater during naval or ground strike phase because I was so focused on the front line. Many times people need a 'go back' to do things in a phase that they forgot.
All in all, this wont kill a game, but if you were able to take snapshots phase per phase throughout the impulse, you could rewind to the glaring mistake staring you in the face. Frankly not every opponent will be lenient on this matter unless the item is not going to cause more chaos. Just imagine how many people will press the next impulse button and then remember OMG i forgot to fly my key groundstrike on <insert big plan here> in some other theatre.
Has this been hashed out?
I feel this is up to the players to decide rather than for the program enforce. Given the ability to save the game at any point, and to enable automatic saves at the end of each phase, the capability of returning to a earlier point in the game will actually be easier (and more accurate) that it is over the board. Negotiating with the other side for permission will be the primary challenge.
Assuming you are not playing with fog of war, it is possible to undo all land moves at any point prior to clicking on the "end of phase" button. That is not true of naval moves because of the non-phasing player having the option of choosing to intercept or not.
The Intelligence rule in WiF is a fun one. But some players consider it broken when the U.S. can end up with dozens and dozens of Intell points. In my current game we are experimenting with some House Rules that only allow a country to buy an Intelligence Operation if they did not buy one the turn before. And a few other changes to limit the amount of points in general.
I like how it can be used to simluate the micro-scale "Weather War" in Greenland and other points far north.
There is a lot of potential to use the Intell rules with Fog of War in the naval system. Germany had good naval intelligence. The UK and US with Ultra had excellent Intel. And the US broke the Japanese naval code. (The Avalon Hill game Victory in the Pacific nicely summarized this: the Japanese move first each turn and the U.S. second). But what if code-breaking had happened differently......
But should they always? What about units that are adjacent across frontiers, say, pre-Barbarossa for example? Also, sometimes armies were very good at masking their strength. I'm thinking of the Ruskies in 43-45 and the Jerries before the Ardennes Offensive.
Cheers, Neilster
Using your Ardennes Offensive example, historically the hidden units were very, very close to the front line.
But that's exactly my point. If large, powerful forces were on numerous occasions well disguised when adjacent to the enemy, why should adjacent units in MWiF always be known? It's not historical and perhaps this unrealistic information could affect the game in some way. If we're having FOW I think it should be used as much as is appropriate.
In game terms, you merely need to keep them a couple of hexes back - and then move them into the front line to attack. For instance, you can have a few armor + mechanized units in the rear but the opponent doesn't know if they are strong or weak. When you want to go on the offensive, you shuffle the units in the front line and create space for the armor attack. This happens all the time in WIF anyway. The FOW just adds a bit more uncertainty.
Newly arrived reinforcements, or fresh arrivals by rail from another theater of operations could be some 4-3s coming to replace 6-4s that are heading elsewhere. Or they could be 9-4s coming to bust your chops. A little suspense to keep your pulse rate high - especially if it is the AIO shuffling all those units around (what the **** is it doing now?).
I agree but there would be even more uncertainty and suspense if there was an historically realistic FOW that shrouded even the frontier/front-line units in mystery when appropriate.
What about during the setup phase too? Could having adjacent units known effect how a player who sets up later performs this action? Couldn't such a player glean unrealistic amounts of information by setting a unit up on a frontier next to a previously FOWed enemy unit and then deciding to move it somewhere else, and so on? Surely this punishes the player who sets up first and who happens to place units adjacent to a frontier (which is often inevitable)?
Setting up later is meant to give you an advantage but I think the dynamics have changed with FOW.
At this point my vision of fog of war for MWIF is kind of foggy. We have kicked around a few ideas and more suggestions for other alternatives as to how OFW should work are always welcome.
Some day I will make the definition of FOW a priority and thrash it all out in detail in less than a week. Not today though.
