Short scenarios?

[Fred98]

Does the game have any short scenarios?

I generally feel that a PBEM game should have no more than 60 emails per player. After that a scenario just gets too long.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Joe 98
Does the game have any short scenarios?

I generally feel that a PBEM game should have no more than 60 emails per player. After that a scenario just gets too long.

Well, it is difficult to judge. The two short scenarios both have 5 turns but within each turn there is a variable number of impulses, with a die rolled at the end of each impulse to determine whether a turn has ended.

Without looking up previous calculations (there is a separate thread on PBEM that discusses virtaully everything about MWIF PBEM in great detail) I would guess around 50-70 emails for the short games. The Barbarossa scenario would be towards the low end because is doesn't have much naval combat (if any). The Guadalcanal will be towards the high end because the PBEM design supports more detailed decision making during naval combat - because the risks and rewards are so large.

[pak19652002]

The standard game has 36 turns so it is unrealistic to think the number of emails can be restricted to anything like 60 emails per player. But, you know that already. I don't know how it will compare to MWIF, but I've played 33 turns on CWIF and sent...are you ready for this...325 emails. It sounds scary when you write it down like that. But, it amounts to almost exactly 10 per turn, which matches up well with Steve's estimate.

In our CWIF games, we allowed the opposing player to make almost all reaction decisions. We ran naval combats and A2A completely unilaterally, with perhaps some general instructions given before each combat. This was essential in CWIF, because I estimate the number of emails would have grown by a factor of 5 if players were constantly stopping to ask their opponents which plane to abort or whether they wanted to stay for another round of combat. I haven't studied it closely, but I think a five-fold increase is not unreasonable if one wanted to send an email reflecting each and every reaction decision possible over the course of a turn. It doesn't matter, though, what the multiple would be because any increase would be intolerable.

Even restricting the emails to 10 per turn using this method and playing diligently, it took us (Lars and me) 9.5 months to play 33 full turns. Is that shocking? All I can say is that time flies when you are having fun...

If you think that is bad, consider our CyberBoard games. Generally, players exert much more control over these games in that they want to make most reaction decisions themselves (I don't know why). This greatly multiplies the number of emails---GREATLY.

For example, in a two player game with John Reynen, we played 25 turns (through SO43). We started the game on 8 May 2005 and I retired on 17 July 2006. So, we played 25 turns in 14 months.

We sent around 270 move files each. That doesn't sound too bad, but CB is very different than CWIF or MWIF. Move files are only sent out after a significant amount of action has taken place...action that requires loads of emails.

2,986 of them to be exact (this includes move files so it's more like 2,400 additional emails total for both players).

Now, some of these were ACTS die rolls, rule disagreements, and other things irrelevant to MWIF, but the majority were reaction decisions. These emails were mostly short messages, but nevertheless each one was written, sent, received and read! Ugh.

All in all, the CB game in which players exercised full decision-making required almost 7 times the number of emails than my CWIF game (corrected for the different number of turns played). So my five-fold estimate is probably reasonable after all.

Anyway, how this all relates to MWIF I haven't the faintest idea. I've had this question in the back of my mind and this email gave me an excuse to run some numbers. I haven't studied the PBEM thread closely so I can't say how MWIF will compare to CWIF or CB. Still, I imagine one has to expect full, 36 turn games to consume at least 6-9 months and require several hundred emails. It will be interesting to see how Steve's system works and whether it can help players compress this timeline.

GOOD LUCK!

[c92nichj]

Having played both CWIF and CB in pretty much the same way as Peter, and folowing the PBEM thread closely.

I believe that MWIF will be closer to the CB experience.
The airfights will get shorter thanks to the AIA, naval fights will be somewhat longer I think as when playing CB we usually bundle question up like I initiate combat in Italian coast, East Med, West Med and North atlantic, how do you react?
In MWIF each of those will require a separate mail and combat resolution.

In CB the end of turn is usually done out of order for each player, that is each player does his return to base, building and reinforcements in one move file instead of waiting for all players to complete return to base before starting the build or US Entry options. If the US would've choses say oil emargo we correct the japanese build afterwords. I belive MWIF will have stricter following of the sequence of play so this mean that end of turn will take longer.

But it is hard to say until we can start to beta test the PBEM part.

Nicklas

[pak19652002]

Well, if Nicklas is right, then playing MWiF by email will take some time and a lot of emails. I don't think there is any getting around that. I've said many times before that I don't mind that especially and compensate by playing more than one game at a time.

Nicklas, your naval search example could be short-circuited by announcing all searches in one email and asking for air interceptions up front. That is the way we do it in CWiF. I think it would be unbearable to do it otherwise. I don't have to tell you that this creates some conflicts, especially when a plane could fly to more than one sea area, but it's an accommodation worth making. If you don't, you could have to suffer a dozen or more email exchanges...one for each naval air interception. I don't want to do that! Just tell the searching player what you want to fly into each sea area and let him run the darn combat...that's what I say. So what if he doesn't react in exactly the same way you would have. I'll bet real admirals' instructions often get distorted in the fog of war.

It will really be interesting to work on all this during the PBEM beta testing.

Peter

ORIGINAL: c92nichj

Having played both CWIF and CB in pretty much the same way as Peter, and folowing the PBEM thread closely.

I believe that MWIF will be closer to the CB experience.
The airfights will get shorter thanks to the AIA, naval fights will be somewhat longer I think as when playing CB we usually bundle question up like I initiate combat in Italian coast, East Med, West Med and North atlantic, how do you react?
In CB each of those will require a separate mail and combat resolution.

In CB the end of turn is usually done out of order for each player, that is each player does his return to base, building and reinforcements in one move file instead of waiting for all players to complete return to base before starting the build or US Entry options. If the US would've choses say oil emargo we correct the japanese build afterwords. I belive MWIF will have stricter following of the sequence of play so this mean that end of turn will take longer.

But it is hard to say until we can start to beta test the PBEM part.

Nicklas

[Froonp]

Even restricting the emails to 10 per turn using this method and playing diligently, it took us (Lars and me) 9.5 months to play 33 full turns. Is that shocking? All I can say is that time flies when you are having fun...

Interesting experience.
Face to face games I usually run, last for 9-10 months, so this amount of time is not exagerated for me for an email game of MWiF.

[pak19652002]

I am a boy in a bubble. I never get to play FTF, not since 1986 anyway. When I returned to the game in 2005, I really grew to enjoy the flexibility of playing whenever I wanted to, like tonight, for instance. It's 1:37AM on the east coast and I'm excanging emails with California and and Indonesia, at least I think Nicklas is in Indonesia. I'm never really quite sure where he is. Tomorrow, I'll be interacting with Scandanavia and New York. It's great. I'd never get to play with these guys otherwise. In fact, I'd never get to play at all!

ORIGINAL: Froonp

Even restricting the emails to 10 per turn using this method and playing diligently, it took us (Lars and me) 9.5 months to play 33 full turns. Is that shocking? All I can say is that time flies when you are having fun...

Interesting experience.
Face to face games I usually run, last for 9-10 months, so this amount of time is not exagerated for me for an email game of MWiF.

[Fred98]

Can we please have a list of the different scenarios.
 
I have done a search but they don't seem to be listed anywhere
 
k
 

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Joe 98

Can we please have a list of the different scenarios.

I have done a search but they don't seem to be listed anywhere

k

Barbarossa:
May/June 1941 to January/February 1942; 5 turns.

Operation Barbarossa was the greatest land campaign in the
history of the world.

This scenario starts with Germany poised to launch its drive
against the massive Soviet army in May/June of 1941.

---

This is the best introductory scenario because it involves
only two major powers, lasts 5 game turns, and includes
few, if any, naval operations.
=========================================
Guadalcanal:
May/June 1942 to January/February 1943; 5 turns.

This scenario starts with the Japanese, having so easily
conquered much of the Pacific, pondering whether they
should take it all.

Meanwhile, the United states is gathering its forces for
the inconclusive battle of the Coral Sea, the decisive
carrier action at Midway, and the long struggle on
Guadalcanal.

---

This scenario is the best introduction to the use of naval
units.

It only lasts 5 turns and is limited to just the Pacific -
it does not include any combat in mainland Asia.
=========================================
Fascist Tide:
September/October 1939 to July/August 1945; 36 turns.

This scenario covers the full war in Europe from
Germany's invasion of Poland in September 1939 until
the end at the battle for Berlin in May 1945.


The Axis powers have the initiative for roughly the
first three years of the war before the Allies gradually
gain the upper hand.

---

This scenario is restricted to the European conflict and
does not include action in the Pacific and Asia.
=========================================
Day of Infamy:
November/December 1941 to July/August 1945; 23 turns.

The Day of Infamy scenario covers the full war in Asia and
the Pacific from November/December of 1941 until the
dropping of the atomic bombs in August 1945.

It starts with Japan ready to bring the USA and the other
western Allies to war with a stunning strike on Pearl Harbor
and rapid expansion into southeast Asia.

---

This scenario is limited to the conflict in the Pacific and
does not include action in Europe, the Atlantic, and
Northern Africa.
=========================================
Global War:
September/October 1939 to July/August 1945; 36 turns.

This scenario covers the full war, from Germany's
invasion of Poland in September 1939 until the dropping
of the atomic bombs in August 1945.

It is the longest and most challenging of all the scenarios.

The Axis powers have the initiative for roughly the first
three years of the war before the Allies gradually gain
the upper hand.
=========================================
Missed the Bus:
July/August 1940 to July/August 1945; 31 turns.

Fall Gelb, Germany's 1940 offensive against France and the
Lowland countries, has been a stunning success.

All of Europe lies at the feet of the Axis.

But where to attack? And how can the Allies survive the
onslaught, wrest the initiative, and start the long drive to
victory?

This scenario includes all the major powers, begins
immediately after the declaration of Vichy France, and
continues until the end of the war.

---

The advantage of this scenario is that the players can skip
over the first 10 months of the war and instead start
immediately after the fall of France.
=========================================
Lebensraum:
May/June 1941 to July/August 1945; 26 turns.

France lies prostrate. The Commonwealth is bloodied but
unbowed. Germany is ready to unleash Operation
Barbarossa against the unsuspecting Soviets.

This scenario starts with the second phase of Germany's
offensive: the attack on the USSR in September/October
of 1941.

---

This scenario expands on the first scenario, Barbarossa, by
including the full world map with all the major powers, and
running until the conclusion of the war.
=========================================
Waking Giant:
November/December 1941 to July/August 1945; 23 turns.

This scenario starts with Germany's offensive in the USSR
stalling as winter arrives in November/December of 1941.

Japan is ready to bring the United States and the other
western Allies to war with a stunning strike on Pearl Harbor
and rapid expansion into southeast Asia.

---

This scenario uses the full world map and involves all the
major powers, although France is in a much reduced state,
having been partially conquered and a Vichy government
installed.
=========================================
Brute Force:
May/June 1942 to July/August 1945; 20 turns.

The Brute Force scenario starts with Germany's summer
offensive towards Stalingrad and the Caucasus in May/June of
1942.

The Japanese are considering their next move after their
unexpectedly successful sweep through southeast Asia and the
Pacific.

Meanwhile, the United States is preparing to land in North
Africa and, in the Pacific, is gathering its forces for the
long struggle on Guadalcanal, the inconclusive battle of the
Coral Sea, and the more decisive event at Midway.

---

This scenario is an expansion of the second scenario,
Guadalcanal, to include the entire world map, all the major
powers, and continue until the end of the war.
=========================================
Darkness Before the Dawn:
July/August 1943 to July/August 1945; 13 turns.

This scenario covers the final third of the war. While the
Axis controls most of Europe, the Allies have rebuilt to
become the stronger side.

The USA's entry into the war has given the Allies enormous
industrial might, which they've converted into war matériel.

But first, the Germans prepare for one last gamble: Kursk.
If that fails, the Soviets will start their irresistible
drive on Berlin.

Meanwhile, the western Allies have cleared North Africa
and are ready to land in Sicily.

In the Pacific, the Japanese imperial dream is
evaporating. Losses at Midway, Papua, and Guadalcanal
have them on the defensive. The USA begins its leap
across the Pacific to liberate the Japanese conquests.
=========================================
Decline and Fall:
May/June 1944 to July/August 1945; 8 turns.

This scenario covers the last stages of the war. The Axis
still controls vast empires and enormous quantities of
matériel. Historically, within 16 months their power was
destroyed and their cities in ruin.

The incompetence the Allied commanders displayed time
and time again during the first half of the war was
replaced by a series of stunning successes under the
command of some excellent leaders.

Could the Axis have put up stronger resistance? Or the
Allies have done even better?

---

This is a good scenario to play if you don't normally get to
this point in your games, or if the Allied players just want
a good time. For the Axis players, it is very difficult.

[Orm]

It would be nice if it was possible to put an earlier endate to at least one scenario.

For example

Fascist Tide: (short game)
September/October 1939 to Nov/Dec 1943; 26 turns.

Victory conditions would have to be set for such a scenario.

I would be willing to make a suggestion on victory conditions if it is possible to ad it to the game.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Orm

It would be nice if it was possible to put an earlier endate to at least one scenario.

For example

Fascist Tide: (short game)
September/October 1939 to Nov/Dec 1943; 26 turns.

Victory conditions would have to be set for such a scenario.

I would be willing to make a suggestion on victory conditions if it is possible to ad it to the game.

The Annual 2000 had a list of all objective cities at all turns of the game, and listed who controlled them.
Using that, it is easy to come up with new numbers of objective cities for each major power at any turn of the game, to replace those of 24.1.2.

For example, the number of objectives for N/D 43 for each major power is :
Ch 1
CW 17
Fr 1
Ge 18
It 4
Ja 10
USA 10
USSR 6

[Jimm]

Is it worth considering including at least one additional scenario- of very limited scope, perhaps for training purposes?

Barbarossa and Guadalcanal are still pretty intense introductions to the game. You could perhaps just have Germany- Poland for instance, or the Norwegian campaign, to introduce naval rules. These might only be say 3 turns long with very limited unit lists but just to make the introduction to the game for newbies a bit less daunting than the biggest land invasion in history...

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: Jimm

Is it worth considering including at least one additional scenario- of very limited scope, perhaps for training purposes?

Barbarossa and Guadalcanal are still pretty intense introductions to the game. You could perhaps just have Germany- Poland for instance, or the Norwegian campaign, to introduce naval rules. These might only be say 3 turns long with very limited unit lists but just to make the introduction to the game for newbies a bit less daunting than the biggest land invasion in history...

I learned the land mechanics of the game by just playing the invansion of Poland (Just the Poland front and one turn). Then my veteran friends that introduced me to WIF said that I was rready to play for real. I objected that I had no idea how the navy worked. They just said that I should play Germany and don't worry about the fleet since Germanys use of it was so limited and pick it up as the game progressed. That was back in the 3rd edition when the game was "simple". It went fairly well. Paris fell in early 42...

In a computer game you can learn most of the mechanics by tutorials and then by playing a turn to get a feel for the game.

[peskpesk]

You could perhaps just have Germany- Poland for instance

Yes , that would be very good for training. I like it! [:)]

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Orm

It would be nice if it was possible to put an earlier endate to at least one scenario.

For example

Fascist Tide: (short game)
September/October 1939 to Nov/Dec 1943; 26 turns.

Victory conditions would have to be set for such a scenario.

I would be willing to make a suggestion on victory conditions if it is possible to ad it to the game.

Without making any commitments, I am willing to entertain suggestions for alternative end dates for scenarios.

Right now there is a single optional rule for entendnig the game for 3 years (from 1945 to 1948), or at least I am pretty sure that is the extension. What I am willing to consider is modifying the optional rule. Right now it is one line of code in the program.

By adding a data file listing which major power holds each objective city for each turn of the game (as Patrice alluded to) that information could be referenced.

Suggestions?

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Jimm

Is it worth considering including at least one additional scenario- of very limited scope, perhaps for training purposes?

Barbarossa and Guadalcanal are still pretty intense introductions to the game. You could perhaps just have Germany- Poland for instance, or the Norwegian campaign, to introduce naval rules. These might only be say 3 turns long with very limited unit lists but just to make the introduction to the game for newbies a bit less daunting than the biggest land invasion in history...

I see no need to make this a 'scenario', which has a tremendous amount of baggage associated with it.

We could simply have a saved game (of, say, Fascist Tide) with Germany about to attack Poland, and let the Player start with Germany having already chosen a Land Action.

[SLAAKMAN]

After that a scenario just gets too long.

Sacrilege!!!! [:'(]

[Jimm]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: Jimm

Is it worth considering including at least one additional scenario- of very limited scope, perhaps for training purposes?

Barbarossa and Guadalcanal are still pretty intense introductions to the game. You could perhaps just have Germany- Poland for instance, or the Norwegian campaign, to introduce naval rules. These might only be say 3 turns long with very limited unit lists but just to make the introduction to the game for newbies a bit less daunting than the biggest land invasion in history...

I see no need to make this a 'scenario', which has a tremendous amount of baggage associated with it.

We could simply have a saved game (of, say, Fascist Tide) with Germany about to attack Poland, and let the Player start with Germany having already chosen a Land Action.

That might work . I think it would need to be signposted as a Tutorial or Beginners scenario, and if there was a way to limit the scope of the scenario it would be an advantage.
I appreciate suggestions like this add work, but accessibility to new players (or lack of) is one of the biggest risks to the success of the game IMO.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Jimm

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: Jimm

Is it worth considering including at least one additional scenario- of very limited scope, perhaps for training purposes?

Barbarossa and Guadalcanal are still pretty intense introductions to the game. You could perhaps just have Germany- Poland for instance, or the Norwegian campaign, to introduce naval rules. These might only be say 3 turns long with very limited unit lists but just to make the introduction to the game for newbies a bit less daunting than the biggest land invasion in history...

I see no need to make this a 'scenario', which has a tremendous amount of baggage associated with it.

We could simply have a saved game (of, say, Fascist Tide) with Germany about to attack Poland, and let the Player start with Germany having already chosen a Land Action.

That might work . I think it would need to be signposted as a Tutorial or Beginners scenario, and if there was a way to limit the scope of the scenario it would be an advantage.
I appreciate suggestions like this add work, but accessibility to new players (or lack of) is one of the biggest risks to the success of the game IMO.

This is no new work.

I already want to have a saved game for each scenario (for different sides & modes of play?) so new players can jump right into moving units around without having to set them up, scrap units, figure out lend lease, etc..

[marcuswatney]

I do feel that very small stand-alone introductory scenarios, just a few impulses long, will be needed to complement the tutorials.  It takes a lot of self-discipline to read tutorials hour after hour and not actually try out in a game what one has just learnt.  The trouble is that if Barbarossa and Guadalcanal are the only 'small' scenarios on offer, there is a real danger that a newbie will dive in prematurely, suffer information overload and then just give up entirely.
 
I think a mini-scenario on the Norwegian Campaign would be superb for introducing the naval mechanics painlessly.  It's a campaign that could easily have been an Allied victory, so fun for both sides.
 
To introduce the land rules, how about featuring the Italian invasion of Greece?  Or the Winter War?  And for introducing the air rules, perhaps the invasion of Crete?
 
If such mini-scenarios feature operations that could have gone either way (so not the German attack on Poland) and are themselves well-balanced, they could also be used for an evening's tournament play.