What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Mitchellvitch

As a long-term lurker leaving at long last the shadows, it seems to be traditional to offer at this point my congratulations on the absolute glory that is MWIF, and all of the tremendous work that has gone in to it: as a WIFer-in-exile I can only pant in anticipation of release. You will put, to quote a player from my old group, the gay back in gaming. Hats off to Steve and everyone else who has helped out.

I just had to jump in to comment on the DOD issue: who needs it? That sounds a bit brutal, but I've never seen the thrill of '37, as it were. Give me '42 any day.

Every WIFer, has, I suppose, different expansion preferences, but this game, when it comes, is going to be the greatest way to avoid work and study ever.

Welcome.

When everybody puts in their 2 cents, a great value can build up.

[Norman42]

I do love Days of Decision and have played 13 or 14 DOD/WIF games since the first edition of DOD. I'm a huge fan of alternate history stories and 'What If...' scenarios.

That being said, I can say with some solid experience in DOD/WiF that the game is often 'won' or 'lost' well before the general war even starts. It is *so* hard to balance from a playability point of view. Germany getting full control of Spain in 1937, or the Commonwealth being able to keep Czechoslovakia alive in 1938, or France crushing Italy in a 1937 war, or Japan destroying all the USSRs far eastern holdings, or the US looking at a 1944 entry date, are all too common in DOD and usually has the game ending with one side very dominant well before 'World War Two" even starts. I'd estimate that 75% of my DoD games have ended within the first year of General War since one side is just in such a good position that the game is already won.

I love DOD, but it doesnt make for a very good war.

Steve, If you ever do tackle that balance nightmare of 1 trillion possible option combinations, I wish you the best of luck...and lots of aspirins.


PS: My all time favorite outcome of DOD was a Soviet/Italian Sea Lion that saw the hammer and sickle flying over the United Kingdom while Rommel led Czechoslovakian armor was invading Nationalist China...from the west. 'What If...' indeed.

[jcprom]

True enough. I never switched to DOD2/3. My first attempt was the last. DOD1 is not as elegant but it's more stable and it feels like WWII.

[warspite1]

I must say I never played DOD and Norman42`s comments are probably sufficient to ensure I never will.  My personal opinion is that MWIF 2 (and I know this is way in the future) should be geared towards fine honing the "war years" and including things that can be achieved on computer that were simply not possible in a cardboard and paper game.
 
Obvious example being Armies in Flames (more historical accuracy in the land units), a more complex production system, a version of Politics in Flames (which presumably would give a more controlled set of "what ifs" than DOD) and I seem to recall ADG stating they wanted the populations of each country taken into account.  As a result if you could mirror situations as existed in the British Army in 1944 whereby the Army was simply running out of men and had to dissolve existing units to keep others up to strength.  Of course if the British Army does not suffer a Dunkirk, Singapore etc, that would improve the size of the army they were able to field.
 
 

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: jcprom

True enough. I never switched to DOD2/3. My first attempt was the last. DOD1 is not as elegant but it's more stable and it feels like WWII.

Maybe Politic in Flames would be an addition that would be more suited to alternate WWII, without being too much extremes ? I never played it, but people use to say it is a quick & dirty DoD that does the job finely.

Also, there is Factories in Flames for a definitive addtion to MWiF, for MWiF product 2.

And obviously there is America in Flames and Patton in Flames, which would be very easy to include in MWiF as they would nearly only be additionnal units to the game, with a some rule changing. Nearly only new scenarios.

[Neilster]

ORIGINAL: Mitchellvitch
...
You will put, to quote a player from my old group, the gay back in gaming.
...

As my old Air Force instructors used to say, "It's no longer illegal but it's still not compulsory" [:'(]

My Mum's not happy about the word "gay" being appropriated.

Cheers, Neilster

[Neilster]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: jcprom

True enough. I never switched to DOD2/3. My first attempt was the last. DOD1 is not as elegant but it's more stable and it feels like WWII.

Maybe Politic in Flames would be an addition that would be more suited to alternate WWII, without being too much extremes ? I never played it, but people use to say it is a quick & dirty DoD that does the job finely.

Also, there is Factories in Flames for a definitive addtion to MWiF, for MWiF product 2.

And obviously there is America in Flames and Patton in Flames, which would be very easy to include in MWiF as they would nearly only be additionnal units to the game, with a some rule changing. Nearly only new scenarios.

And the spheroid-with-hex-faces global map! I'm not giving up on that. [:'(][;)]

Cheers, Neilster

[panzers]

I realize there can be many different outcomes from it, but I played with really good and intelligent players, high IQ and all and more often than not, the changes from the actual events were merely subtle. For instance: the purge always happened, the Rhineland, always happened, and only in some very rare cases, Like, for instance France getting the chit and actually succeding in their remote political roll and getting an early industry increase, the game is almost always as planned. I think the strangest thing I ever saw was that Germany actually got czeckoslovakia to be their ally with the full army.
Occasionally you might see Germany getting Spain after the Nationalists won, or even a very highly unlikely chance of Turkey or Sweden, but at what cost? Romania? I don't think so.
So the fact that things like France invading Italy in 1937 sounds like people were deliberately trying to alter the historical value of the game.
The guys I used to play with valued the traditional values of the game(if that makes any sense for the poor English skills I have) and we tried to alter things, but in a way that would not ruin it for themselves. There are way too many lost variables by swaying in too many different directions. That is why I feel so strongly about the DOD. ADG did a wonderful job with all the checks and balances involved with this separate part of the game.
One time the allies got the extended Maginot line. But you can pretty much predict what happens after that:The Netherlands became pro and Belgium of course in the axis camp. and, of course that affects greatly on Turkey and even to some extent Poland as well as Czechslovakia. So, again I ask you? is it really worth trying to alter history that much?
Incidentally, in case you were wondering: it was DOD II that we played.

[Norman42]

ORIGINAL: panzers
So, again I ask you? is it really worth trying to alter history that much?
Incidentally, in case you were wondering: it was DOD II that we played.

Short answer: yes.

The first few games of DOD1(in my opinion the best version and least unbalanced) and DOD2 that my gamers played were often very much like you describe, playing historical options at historical times, leading to a fairly historical war - ie Germany declares war on Poland with a CW cassus belli in sept 1939 "because thats the way it is supposed to be".

After those test runs the players all learned the details of the DOD system and were able to really push the system and make fairly un-historical and un-realistic things happen. By the 5th or 6th game the "craziness" was standard play. Every player gunned for the big score countries (Spain/Turkey/Sweden/Czech/Poland) and knew the system well enough to pretty much guarantee a strategy that would get them the countries they needed for their plans. This led to very polarized games where nearly *every* country is in the active camp of a Major Power. If Germany wants Spain, they *will* get Spain, and in DOD games where Plan Z is common for the German Navy, the CW is in deep deep trouble with France and Gibraltar toasted in 1939. Likewise the eastern strategy with Germans in Turkey crushing the USSR in 1940. Or the CW/France level 3 alliance and combined war aims in 1939 where France *never* falls and has 12 CW corps and the entire RAF in France by late 1940.

By DOD 3 the crazy games started right off the bat and were usually decided by mid 1938 depending on who got lucky playing their big score options.

These scenarios are great fun, no doubt about it, and some of the best times I've had in WIF have been in those wild DOD/WIF games...but, they were SO unbalanced as to be fairly unplayable once the real war broke out and they were not a whole lot of fun for the "whipping boy" side of the game once things started to go against them.

After our wildest game with Russians conquesting London and Rommel in Urumchi we packed up DOD and went back to good old WIF.

It just makes for a better game for everyone when there is some stability and balance.

[panzers]

I find that to be very peculiar becuse once both side understand how to manipulate the game engine, they end up cancelling each other and it goes as planned anyway. Now I never played DODIII and doesn't sound like I want to, but I just found DODII just balanced enough that you can manipulate a couple things nothing more. I guess it all depends on who you play with. I played with the same guys everytime so we pretty much cancelled each other out unless something really screwy happens and France and the US never get a chit, much less their political roll, which I found never happened. Maybe we were just lucky.

[ezzler]

Just out of interest which WIF ' extras' and 'adds' do people enjoy the most/least.

i am in the Norman42 camp for DOD 1+2 [ never tried3]. It was  great fun but we stopped using it pretty quickly and substituted politics in flames if we were to use anything.

Planes in flames .. A must have + carriers planes in flames too
mech in flames .. have it but have never used it { was this asia in flames ? ]
Patton in flames only played once and was the best ww3 strategy game ever.. would love that as an add  on
Leaders in flames .. too much chrome
Cruisers in flames dont have
convoys don't have , but did used to like the sub system from wif historical.
+ plenty of good house rules on that site http://home.earthlink.net/~devinc/wifhouse.htm
Sif ++

+ i'm sure there are more

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: ezz

Just out of interest which WIF ' extras' and 'adds' do people enjoy the most/least.

i am in the Norman42 camp for DOD 1+2 [ never tried3]. It was  great fun but we stopped using it pretty quickly and substituted politics in flames if we were to use anything.

Planes in flames .. A must have + carriers planes in flames too
mech in flames .. have it but have never used it { was this asia in flames ? ]
Patton in flames only played once and was the best ww3 strategy game ever.. would love that as an add  on
Leaders in flames .. too much chrome
Cruisers in flames dont have
convoys don't have , but did used to like the sub system from wif historical.
+ plenty of good house rules on that site http://home.earthlink.net/~devinc/wifhouse.htm
Sif ++

+ i'm sure there are more

From your list, ...

MWIF product 1:
Planes in Flames and Ships in Flames are mandatory, not optional.
Mech in Flames (Asia Aflame), Cruisers in Flames, and Convoys in Flames (optional rules)

Future MWIF products (in no particular order):
DOD III,
Politics in Flames,
America in Flames,
Patton in Flames,
Leaders in Flames.

I am very reluctant to add house rules, since they are so numerous and often go directly against the intent of the WIF game designers.

There are also a whole host of issues that I categorize as "WIF design kit".

[panzers]

Based pn everything I have read here: Why DODIII and not I or II?

[jcprom]

From your list, ...

MWIF product 1:
Planes in Flames and Ships in Flames are mandatory, not optional.
Mech in Flames (Asia Aflame), Cruisers in Flames, and Convoys in Flames (optional rules)

Future MWIF products (in no particular order):
DOD III,
Politics in Flames,
America in Flames,
Patton in Flames,
Leaders in Flames.

Carrier planes in flames is in MWIF 1 ?
And Africa Aflame possibly in MWIF 2 ?

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: panzers

Based pn everything I have read here: Why DODIII and not I or II?

When the time comes, we'll have a discussion about that.

For now, I am using DOD III as a placeholder since that is ADG's latest and greatest. The same logic was used to build MWIF based on WIF FE instead of WIF 5.

[jcprom]

Based on everything I have read here: Why DODIII and not I or II?

DODIII is an evolution of DODII.

DODI is one design. DODII/DODIII is another design (DODIII improves on DODII).

If DOD is implemented in MWIF2, there is no other choice but DODIII because DODI is discontinued and not fully compatible with WIF:FE. (DODI was designed to be compatible with WIF 5th edition ; they both have 6 sided dies for instance, unlike DODIII and WIF:FE).

Harry Rowland once wrote DODI has millions of possibilities whereas DODII/III has billions. Play-testing such games is a real challenge.

I think MWIF product 2 or 3 (including DODIII) should include some "system" (not a "design kit") to allow players to "act" should something unacceptable happen. In our games of DOD, we encountered a few "game bugs". This was rare but if it happened in MWIF, many hours of play could be spoiled.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: jcprom

Based on everything I have read here: Why DODIII and not I or II?

DODIII is an evolution of DODII.

DODI is one design. DODII/DODIII is another design (DODIII improves on DODII).

If DOD is implemented in MWIF2, there is no other choice but DODIII because DODI is discontinued and not fully compatible with WIF:FE. (DODI was designed to be compatible with WIF 5th edition ; they both have 6 sided dies for instance, unlike DODIII and WIF:FE).

Harry Rowland once wrote DODI has millions of possibilities whereas DODII/III has billions. Play-testing such games is a real challenge.

I think MWIF product 2 or 3 (including DODIII) should include some "system" (not a "design kit") to allow players to "act" should something unacceptable happen. In our games of DOD, we encountered a few "game bugs". This was rare but if it happened in MWIF, many hours of play could be spoiled.

Autosave at the end of each phase is the current solution in MWIF. You can also save manually whenever you like.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: jcprom
Carrier planes in flames is in MWIF 1 ?
And Africa Aflame possibly in MWIF 2 ?

Both are in MWiF right now.

[composer99]

The Mech in Flames counter set was radically modified in 2007, and I believe that the revised version is going to be in MWiF 1. As far as I know Leaders in Flames has been discontinued, since the units that came with that set were shipped over to the 2007 Mech in Flames kit.

[Mziln]

The Mindwire-V5 would be excelent for making players finish their turns quickly.