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.
On average, the Global War scenario (the 1939 start campaign) takes between four to six months to play, depending on the options you have picked (more chrome means more time taken), the amount of free time you have to play WiF, and the speed with which one side or the other capitulates.
That figure is for face-to-face games, where the players are assembled for a couple of hours at a time doing nothing other than playing WiF. A PBEM game takes a lot longer.
A couple of hours at a time, and finish in as little as four months? Are you guys playing five times a week? We play five hours once a week, averaging one turn a night, and though we aren't particularly quick, it takes about nine months to play.
"The creative combination lays bare the presumption of a lie." -- Lasker
I think WIFFE does a great job of balancing game detail and abstracting other aspects of WWII like convoys.
Back in college, my group of 4-6 players would complete a campaign game in around 100-130 hours. The smaller scenarios Guadalcanal and the Russian campaign can be completed in a long night. The complexity is variable, ranging from "Classic" WIFFE to the Deluxe adding more special counters, optional rules, maps, and other chrome. The deluxe might add 20% to your time commitment. Turn lengths are variable like others have said. The game is over 25 years old spanning 6 or 7? editions, but IMO, is the definite strategic WWII game out there. Rules are complicated at first but not as complicated as say, advanced squad leader.
War in the Pacific focuses on the naval aspect well and, IMO, abstracts the land combat. I think you can complete a WIF grand campaign in about 1/4 to 1/3 of the time it takes to complete a full campaign of WITP. WIF goes into a more strategic depth in all facets of WWII (economic, naval, air, ground, etc). For the board game, other modules adds post war and political aspects. In WIF, the naval game is area based with the convoy system abstracted (1 convoy counter = 1 million tonnes, approx). For WIF to equal the time commitment of WITP, you'll need to convert the conv counters to individual ships, and play the land at divisional level, and maybe move to 2 week or monthly turns!.
The main difference is that WITP, I think, was created for a computer and WIF was created as a board game. The computer is what made WITP possible.
My main complaint with WIFFE is that later modules don't get integrated too well into the basic game.
Getting slightly off topic, Now if I may plant a seed, what if Matrix combines the land system of Operational Art of War 3 and the naval ssytem of WITF....
There's a discussion on the WiF Yahoo! Group mailing list right now about convoy points and what they represent; I think the number being floated around there right now is 6 convoy points = 1 million tons of shipping = 1 transport or amphib unit.
That number is of course only if you're using Ships in Flames for your convoys.
ORIGINAL: AHFlattop
I think WIFFE does a great job of balancing game detail and abstracting other aspects of WWII like convoys.
I don't know. I mean other than the changes on how China works, the convoy system has undergone the most changes over the life of WIF, I think. I originally a SUB unit was supposed to be a pack itself. Now you need a bunch to do damage. Cruiser in Flames and Convoys in flames. Yeah, just not convinced.
WiF's weaknesses with the sub war are not new problems introduced by Convoys in Flames or Cruisers in Flames (indeed, CLiF introduces some of Germany's best convoy hunters - the auxiliary cruisers!). Its main weakness is quite simply the feast-or-famine nature that the naval search roll system imposes on the strategic submarine war, which basically goes against the historical attritional nature of that part of the war.
I don't know. I mean other than the changes on how China works, the convoy system has undergone the most changes over the life of WIF, I think. I originally a SUB unit was supposed to be a pack itself. Now you need a bunch to do damage. Cruiser in Flames and Convoys in flames. Yeah, just not convinced.
A SUB is still 30 first line subs in WiF FE. You can do damage with only one of them, and if you put a lot of them together, you'll do more damage.
WiF's weaknesses with the sub war are not new problems introduced by Convoys in Flames or Cruisers in Flames (indeed, CLiF introduces some of Germany's best convoy hunters - the auxiliary cruisers!). Its main weakness is quite simply the feast-or-famine nature that the naval search roll system imposes on the strategic submarine war, which basically goes against the historical attritional nature of that part of the war.
I think that the "feast & famine" occurs when you do not commit enough to the Atlantic war.
If you commit more, you'll have more search rolls, and the things will come down to an attrition war.
I wasn't saying that CLIF or CIF were bad, but rather that this is an example of the changing nature of the convoy system.
Jason
ORIGINAL: composer99
WiF's weaknesses with the sub war are not new problems introduced by Convoys in Flames or Cruisers in Flames (indeed, CLiF introduces some of Germany's best convoy hunters - the auxiliary cruisers!). Its main weakness is quite simply the feast-or-famine nature that the naval search roll system imposes on the strategic submarine war, which basically goes against the historical attritional nature of that part of the war.
