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.
My thoughts exactly. Perhaps after I get more acclimated I'll want something more powerful. I see no reason why a player should have to control more than Japan. I mean, that's all the way on the other side of the world.
Japan is the country I feel is the most interesting, however, Italy is the country I feel is the least understood and quite possibly the one with the biggest overall impact on the war.
There are a myriad of strategies the Italians can employ, both with and without German help that can be war winning operations.
Ah, but then, we are just old school strategists. We've not got the experience at WiF that others on these forums have. I'm sure our strategies are old and outdated. I'm sure we will find that they no longer work as they once did and we will have to rework all of them.
Or they work just fine but must be fine tuned to match the new capabilities of the rules and units.
Good Hunting.
MR
The most expensive thing in the world is free time.
Founder of HSG scenario design group for Combat Mission.
Panzer Command Ostfront Development Team.
Flashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm Development Team.
I do not agree that Italy has a "Myriad" of strategies. As I see it, you have the option of:
going all-out-barbarosa abandoning Africa (not a nice strategy for Italy)
Presseng for Suez
Presseng for Gibraltar via North Africa
Presseng for Gibraltar via the sea alone
Presseng for Gibraltar via Spain
What am I missing?
I do not agree that Italy has a "Myriad" of strategies. As I see it, you have the option of:
going all-out-barbarosa abandoning Africa (not a nice strategy for Italy)
Presseng for Suez
Presseng for Gibraltar via North Africa
Presseng for Gibraltar via the sea alone
Presseng for Gibraltar via Spain
What am I missing?
Being a PITA to the CW by building Territorials and trying to conquer the CW African colonies, which then generate more Territorials to conquer more with.
Or invading Syria, and then trying to align Iraq and Persia.
Invading Syria is hartly "Stategy" - it is more like a follow-up of a Suez campaign, no?.
Africa by teritorials - ok - that I'll concede is a strategy[:)]
I do not agree that Italy has a "Myriad" of strategies. As I see it, you have the option of:
going all-out-barbarosa abandoning Africa (not a nice strategy for Italy)
Presseng for Suez
Presseng for Gibraltar via North Africa
Presseng for Gibraltar via the sea alone
Presseng for Gibraltar via Spain
What am I missing?
That is just the Medeterranian strategies.
You could go for Yugoslavia and Greece and maybe Bulgaria as well for a small Balkan empire.
Have different strategies after you get out of the Medeterranian. Like going for India or South Africa.
Or you could go for strategic warfare against CW. Lots of AC and submarines.
Or you could play defensively and just support Germany in USSR.
Or you could go for Syria and Iraq and the Turkey-Soviet border (with the help of a few germans) in order to get Turkey to join (ignoring Suez).
Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb -- they're often students, for heaven's sake. - Terry Pratchett
A government is a body of people; usually, notably, ungoverned. - Quote from Firefly
In the ultimate long run though, Italy's survival depends on the decisions of other Major Powers ... whether Germany opts for a Gibraltar campaign (increasingly common), and if so whether the Allies opt to try and get it back, and if not then just how fast the Allies try and knock you out of the war (always wise play given the action limit system), and if so just how much Germany sends you some help to slow that down.
And I really enjoy running around in Africa, especially if a living-large Japan can come and play too. One of the things I love about WiF is how it has opened up that continent to play (especially nowadays with LoC Vichy), without having to pay 15 burps just to attack something there like in the 3rd Reich expansion. One of the more epic battles I have seen lately was the Belgian CAV, Belgian FTR, and their African Territorial attacking the Libyans across a river, into a jungle city, after a long cat-and-mouse chase. The battle wiped out all of the participating forces...fitting after a probably horribly grueling campaign on the ground. We've had more epic small-scale campaigns featuring Yamashita driving on Capetown attempting to seal the Indian Ocean from the Western navies, facing whatever scratch forces the Americans can rush down there while also investing in the long-term potential of the USN, and all of the Japanese float-plane assets that they can scrounge up. Quite the Japanese Best Laid Pipe Dream.
Going back to how long to keep playing a game of WiF, I agree with Mad Russian; a lot of games it is better to pick up and start over. As the Allies, I can get a lot of satisfaction from a successful defense of the world in the first half of the game. If the Germans are in Poland in 1943 and the Americans have airbases on the China or South China Sea by a similar date, it's over (similarly, if in 43 the Germans hold the Rock and are in Asia while the Japanese have a firewall around Pearl and any other Allied Major Port within three sea zones of their convoy routes). Given the way WiF works these days with three land units per hex, fleets of dozens of ships, and airplanes all over the place, the slugfest at the end is kind of boring for me (and incredibly time consuming as turns take 2-3 times longer to play). I much prefer the game when there are still empty hexes near the front lines, and operational tactics still make a big difference. But a lot of players only find satisfaction from successful offensive campaigns so they insist on the end-of-game slugfest (which is why they frequently fail as the Allies...picking up the attack dice far too soon).
If this is a game that allows players to realistically play the leaders of their particular countries then it serves to reason that if a player feels the war is lost, he should be allowed the option of a gracious surrender. I mean, just because you may be playing Hitler, Mussolini, or Tojo(Hirohito), doesn't mean you have to act like them. If you want to see a close to historic outcome, then I suggest you bid Axis, because while you can't make your opponent continue to play against their better judgment, they can't make you stop either.
In all our games over the years, it is very rare for the axis to win, no matter how well they may seem to be doing. The allied might can be quite strong in the late game, and much ground can be covered. In one rather entertaining game, the Japanese had quite the empire, with the perimeter well defended. The allies won anyways, because we went for the automatic victory, taking only the hexes that was needed. It finally came down to a sea saw battle for Berlin between the americans, Russians and Germans, with the fate of the game resting on who owned the city. It did really annoy the Japanese who still had a lot of units and territory, but were minus Taihhoku and Tokyo (they never took Chungking), but still owned Port Arthur, Truk, Manilla and others...
“My logisticians are a humorless lot … they know if my campaign fails, they are the first ones I will slay.” – Alexander the Great
In our games one side or the other becomes very dominant by mid 44 at the latest and sometimes before that.
We are about even in Axis and Allied victories.
Axis victories are generally determined by if the Soviet Union falls or not.
Allied victories are generally determined by if the Soviet Union falls or not.
See how simple that is...we operate on the KISS system. [:D]
I've seen the Soviet Union fall in a single turn and the Soviets be on the full offensive by 1942. We've played a lot of games and tried lots of strategies. Our group critiques every game when we are finished as well. We go over what worked and what didn't for both sides. That allows us to continue to improve the strategic results.
It's been my experience that EVERY Strategy will work SOMETIMES! [&o]
The question is which strategies will work most of the time?!
Good Hunting.
MR
The most expensive thing in the world is free time.
Founder of HSG scenario design group for Combat Mission.
Panzer Command Ostfront Development Team.
Flashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm Development Team.
In all our games over the years, it is very rare for the axis to win, no matter how well they may seem to be doing. The allied might can be quite strong in the late game, and much ground can be covered. In one rather entertaining game, the Japanese had quite the empire, with the perimeter well defended. The allies won anyways, because we went for the automatic victory, taking only the hexes that was needed. It finally came down to a sea saw battle for Berlin between the americans, Russians and Germans, with the fate of the game resting on who owned the city. It did really annoy the Japanese who still had a lot of units and territory, but were minus Taihhoku and Tokyo (they never took Chungking), but still owned Port Arthur, Truk, Manilla and others...
Losing Tokyo, and not being able to retake it, would have been a serious blow to Japan. It also is a clear indication of their inferior military situation in the game.
Invading Syria is hartly "Stategy" - it is more like a follow-up of a Suez campaign, no?.
Africa by teritorials - ok - that I'll concede is a strategy[:)]
Oh I disagree. [:-] Wanting control of Suez and closing the canal, versus wanting 4 corps in Syria, in supply, so they can dash into Iraq and then align Perisa - that's a different strategic focus entirely.
You are rigth - when I said Italy does not have a miriad of strategy options, what I should have said is, she have limited GRAND strategy options and they are centered around the med.
What is attempted in the med - and how - Italy has a number of choices.
You are rigth - when I said Italy does not have a miriad of strategy options, what I should have said is, she have limited GRAND strategy options and they are centered around the med.
What is attempted in the med - and how - Italy has a number of choices.
So then, we are back to Italy having a myriad of strategic options.
Of course the choices Italy makes are centered around the Med. Italy is the center of the Med. That's not the only place in the world Italy can affect, but even if it is, if Italy gains control of the Med the Allies won't like the results.
Good Hunting.
MR
The most expensive thing in the world is free time.
Founder of HSG scenario design group for Combat Mission.
Panzer Command Ostfront Development Team.
Flashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm Development Team.
You mean if the Germans get control of the med for the Italians...
Not if I play the Italians. But to each his own. I've yet to play more than 2 games where German capital ships enter the Med. If German capital ships don't enter the Med then that means that ITALY gains control of the Med if it's done. Not the Germans. The Germans need to be doing other things.
Go to our sign up sheet and put your name right below Gridley's!! [;)]
Either we are good at what we do or the rest of you are way out of our league [X(]......which do you suppose that is?
Good Hunting.
MR
The most expensive thing in the world is free time.
Founder of HSG scenario design group for Combat Mission.
Panzer Command Ostfront Development Team.
Flashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm Development Team.
Against the Royal Navy the Italians need German help (in the form of aircraft, mostly) to fight effectively in the Med, and they usually also need German army units to make progress against the CW on land.
I've managed to take Malte and Suez as Italy with only 1 figther borrowed from Germany. Malta was becasue CW left it unguarded and Suez was because the CW had to few units to make a stand in Egypt.
I'd say given avarage CW play, that would not have happened
Italy needs a few german land units to be sucesfull in Egypt - as for the Med propper - Italien LBA can do the job in the early years, but 1-2 german plains would not hurt...
I see that your definition of control is much different then mine, so let me explain:
The med is controlled when either you can project enough power into a seazone to make the enemy afraid to move into it, or you close the access points off. The italians are incapabale of projecting enough power to prevent even the french from challenging them in the med. The british can trade 2-1 in ships with the italians and still have enough left over for its needs.. As for closing the access points, can Italy really take Gibralter by itself from a competant british player? The Suez canal?
What I have seen in all cases, the med is partly controlled when the Germans project land based planes into it, and totally controlled when they take out Spain/Gibralter, then the Suez. The only real help the italians can provide is some transport capablity and shore bombardment on the coast.
But the Italians controlling the Med? Thats a laugh.
“My logisticians are a humorless lot … they know if my campaign fails, they are the first ones I will slay.” – Alexander the Great
In the game where I took Malta, Italy did control the Med as per you definition (after the fall of France).
It is true you can not do so, if the CW is not pressed in the Atlantic, and you can't hope to maintain control, if you do not take Gibraltar. l disagree with the atrition-thinking as the CW has a lot to defend, once Japan enters the war - as Italy/Japan I'd be hapy to trade 1 cap. for 2 with the Italians - the again it is more often taking ships for LBA - a better tradeoff to be sure.
