Plans in Flames: A Barbarossa AAR.

[Canoerebel]

 
Are you beta testing WIF, Grotius? 
 
A few questions.  I hope I'm not out of line asking in your AAR.
 
1.  Are you enjoying WiF?
2.  An average AE game played at a decent but not ridiculous rate might take two to three years.  How long do you think it might take to play a WiF game under the same conditions?
3.  How does WiF compare to AE as far as level of enjoyment for you, the gamer?
 
 

[Grotius]

Hey, Canoe! Always great to hear from you. Yes, I've been beta-testing WIF since 2009, though I've occasionally gone AWOL to deal with real life and such. And no, you're not at all out of line asking questions in the AAR -- that's why I posted it, to generate discussion. To answer your questions more directly:

1. Yes, I'm really enjoying WIF. I've played dozens of board wargames, including other monsters like OCS and Third Reich/A World at War, but for whatever reason I've never played the boardgame WIF. Now I'm thinking about pre-ordering the Master Edition of WIF (which is at divisional scale, not corps scale) because I'm enjoying MWIF so much. WIF has the master-strategy features of games like "World at War," but it models aircraft and ships in a far more detailed and satisfying manner. I like WIF's scale: it has two-month turns, broken into impulses that I suppose are roughly a week long. It makes for a nice balance between playability and detail. Indeed, WIF has an unusual combination of strategy (when to declare war, where to send the US fleet, Sea Lion vs Barbarossa) and tactics (which fighter should intercept, which target should I ground-strike, should I put an AA unit here, etc). Some of the mechanics are quite innovative: turns that vary in length somewhat unpredictably, uncertainty about what you get when you build stuff, "scrapping" obsolete units, etc. All in all, I like it a lot.

2. I'm glad you asked about play time. I'm playing one of the two shortest scenarios -- only five turns, or 10 months -- and I'm almost done after about 12 hours of time played. I probably could've played in half that time if I hadn't been working on this AAR at the same time. But "Barbarossa" isn't your typical WIF experience. The real meat of this game is playing the war on a global scale, and the global scenarios take much longer. I haven't come close to finishing "Global War," the grand campaign. Over the table, Global War reportedly takes 100 hours or more. I'm thinking the computer version may cut that time somewhat, since the game enforces the rules for you, but I'm just guessing. I'm going to start a "Global War" campaign after I finish "Barbarossa," and I'll try to keep track of my time played.

3. Wow, tough question. I'll cop out and say I love things about both. I love the global scale of MWIF, and MWIF has a much more interesting political model. MWIF's production system is more fun, too, I think. I don't know which is more realistic, but the production decisions seem more interesting and far-reaching in MWIF. MWIF's aircraft aren't modeled in as much detail, but I find air missions more fun in MWIF.

On the other hand, I prefer the higher level of detail in AE, the daily turns, the hex-by-hex ship movement, the more detailed treatment of ground forces. For a game on its scale, MWIF has surprisingly detailed naval stuff -- you can select optional rules that give you every ship in the war down to CLs (but DDs remain abstracted, for the most part). But AE obviously has a more detailed naval model -- MWIF has area-movement for naval forces, and it doesn't model ship systems in nearly as much detail as AE (which models the facing and caliber of every ship's gun, etc.). AE scratches the naval-grognard itch better.

Other stuff is a wash. AE supports PBEM and has an AI; at release, MWIF won't ship with an AI, but it will support Netplay, which in my testing works pretty well -- but requires you to be online at the same time as your opponent. I personally don't see the AI as a big deal -- AE is more fun against humans, and so is MWIF. But unlike AE, MWIF actually works as a solitaire mode game, since fog of war isn't such a crucial part of the system.

Anyway, those are my initial thoughts. Glad you asked.

[Grotius]

January/February, 1942: The Russian winter rages on. Despite blizzard conditions, German troops destroy Soviet troops defending outside Leningrad, and several German and Finnish units are now poised to attack the city itself. Time is short, though: the scenario concludes at the end of this turn.

[Grotius]

The real problem isn't Leningrad, though; it's Germany's tortoise-like pace in the south. Only now are German forces descending on Kiev. Odessa remains in Soviet hands, although it may fall this turn. The snow is slowing everything down, and the Luftwaffe remains mostly grounded.

[Grotius]

In this scenario, the objective is to take more than 22 cities, and Leningrad, Moscow and Stalingrad count as two cities. Germany is nowhere near that number, and time is running out. What's more, the bad weather means this turn is probably going to end quickly. So Germany can't wait for the snow to stop, even though the weather hurts attack odds. She attacks simultaneously at Kiev, Smolensk, and Leningrad.

The snow lets up just enough for aircraft to get off the ground. Unfortunately, most of the bombers near Kiev are still grounded for lack of supply, but one can make it:

[Canoerebel]

I think I may be done with WitP: AE, at least for a long, long time.  It's the best (or possibly second best) strategy game I've ever played, but the vast time commitment finally led to massive burn out.
 
I'm not sure I'm in the market for another game, but WiF would be one of the few that would be of interest.  (The one that would absolutely be of interest would be Advanced Third Reich, which was my favorite until AE came along, but rights to the Avalon Hill games must be guarded at Fort Knox.)
 
I'm going to watch WiF pretty closely over the next month or so.

[brian brian]

ORIGINAL: Grotius


AE (which models the facing and caliber of every ship's gun, etc.).

ouch

[Grotius]

Canoe, I hear ya on WITP/AE. I love it to death, but it's just too all-consuming -- if you play AE, you don't have time for much else. In PBEM, I'd check and re-check everything compulsively, and I would stress out about it, stewing over while it driving to work, etc. The AI is an alternative, but obviously the AI opponent isn't nearly as good as a human, and even AI games take a long time.

I played the heck out of "Third Reich" and, to a lesser extent, "Advanced Third Reich." I haven't played "A World at War," which I guess is "Third Reich" extended to the whole world? WIF is of the same genre. It's got that grand-strategy thing going on -- but it's more detailed than "Third Reich" and its progeny. Remember the 9-factor fleets from Third Reich? WIF includes every CL and above, which I find much more satisfying than generic 9-factor fleets. WIF ships are rated for range, speed, surface combat, anti-aircraft, bombardment, ASW, etc. Likewise, Third Reich air units were generic; WIF has dozens of different aircraft, with ratings for air-to-air, air-to-sea, tactical bombardment, and strategic bombardment, plus range, extended range, twin vs single engine, night fighters, etc. WIF's land units are somewhat more like those from "Third Reich," but WMIF's optional rules include scads of division-sized units too.

Anyway, I do hope you keep an eye on MWIF. For some people, the absence of an AI may be crucial; those folks might want to wait until the AI opponent is implemented, post-release. For me, I have played wargames solitaire my whole life, and it's worth it to me to have a computer WIF that enforces the rules for me. I'd probably never play WIF on Vassal, but MWIF makes it easy to learn the rules -- the computer guides you through each phase. That said, I still spend a lot of time reading and re-reading Steve's excellent Player's Guide and Rules as Coded. If you want to play *well*, you have to learn the rules. Me, I enjoy learning wargame rules, so I don't mind.

[Ur_Vile_WEdge]

ORIGINAL: Grotius

If you want to play *well*, you have to learn the rules. Me, I enjoy learning wargame rules, so I don't mind.

It's useful for knowing quasi-exploits and little "gimmicks", knowing that a first turn DoW on Yugoslavia allows you to align Rumania before the Soviets can grab Bessarabia and throw the whole spanner in the works.

The core of the war; the big brawl in the plains of the Ukraine, the carrier fight in the Pacific, the fall of France and a possible Sealion, where America should be focusing her primary efforts, the war part of the war; I mean you need to know some amount of the rules, but the best player isn't the one who is the best rules lawyer. A lot of WiF play is relatively intuitive, at least compared to other wargames. A rounding in making probability calculations quickly is probably more important than the nitty gritty of the rules texts.

[Klydon]

I have played both Third Reich and WiF on the table. We used to play a lot of Third Reich back in the day. WiF from my experience was up to 4th edition I think and was missing a lot of the add on modules that came later.

Basically, it isn't even close. WiF wins in so many different ways as a superior game over Third Reich. About the only thing Third Reich has going for it would be the smaller foot print the game needs in terms of space to set up.

The future of Avalon Hill games is pretty murky. The catalog is owned by Hasbro now, including computer rights to the games. Some Avalon Hill titles have been reprinted, but I think Hasbro has pretty much committed to the idea of more family oriented games and believes the war game side is a very small market, although they have spun off some titles to other companies who have done reprints of some of the "war game" titles. Unfortunately, many of the war gaming types are old geezers and it is a dying market for the most part.

[Canoerebel]

Silly question.  I know there's no AI upon release of WiF, but you will be able to PBEM, right?
 
I'm leery of claims that complex wargames are "intuitive."  I recall that specific claim made about Third Reich and Advanced Third Reich.  Nonsense!  knowing the intricacies of the rules was vital to playing the game.  For instance, I remember that it was vital that the Axis player, in setting up the game, include an airbase on the French border in order to advance that airbase into France (or Belgium).  It was nearly fatal if the German player failed to do so.  That was a small thing (A3R was a fantastic game), but it goes to show that games as complex as these really aren't intuitive.

[Ur_Vile_WEdge]

Maybe "intuitive" was the wrong word. I'm not sure what the right one is. But what I'm trying to get at is if you look at the really hard strategic and tactical decisions; things like what your main game plan is with Germany, how you set up the Soviets so that the Germans don't roll all over you when the Blitz comes, how many troops England needs to keep an opportunistic jump into London at bay; you don't find those things in the rule book.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Klydon

I have played both Third Reich and WiF on the table. We used to play a lot of Third Reich back in the day. WiF from my experience was up to 4th edition I think and was missing a lot of the add on modules that came later.

Basically, it isn't even close. WiF wins in so many different ways as a superior game over Third Reich. About the only thing Third Reich has going for it would be the smaller foot print the game needs in terms of space to set up.

The future of Avalon Hill games is pretty murky. The catalog is owned by Hasbro now, including computer rights to the games. Some Avalon Hill titles have been reprinted, but I think Hasbro has pretty much committed to the idea of more family oriented games and believes the war game side is a very small market, although they have spun off some titles to other companies who have done reprints of some of the "war game" titles. Unfortunately, many of the war gaming types are old geezers and it is a dying market for the most part.

warspite1

I agree 100%. I never played Advanced Third Reich, only the original, and then played WIF to 5th Edition - with Planes and Ships in Flames. Maybe the advanced game changed the original beyond recognition, but otherwise...

Basically anyone who states they thought Third Reich was brilliant is in for a really big, and pleasant, surprise with WIF. Third Reich was so dull in comparison - abstract fleets, aircraft and uninteresting land units, set things you had to do every game, poor attention to detail from an aesthetic point of view - all the minors the same colour and not enough for each country...dull, dull, dull with limited replayability.

WIF is just so much fun, so much more interesting, challenging and unpredictable in comparison. And you get to fight the whole war.

As for being intuitive, each to their own, but I think that is incorrect (imo). The game has some very novel features and you need to invest time in the rule book. That said, boy is it worth it.

[Canoerebel]

If WiF is as good or better than A3R, then I'm all in.  But A3R was worlds better than 3R.  The research aspect and diplomacy were great fun.  And combinbing A3R with Empire of the Rising Sun to have Global War was really a great match.  If WiF can exceed Global War for fun, hurrah!

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Silly question.  I know there's no AI upon release of WiF, but you will be able to PBEM, right?

I'm leery of claims that complex wargames are "intuitive."  I recall that specific claim made about Third Reich and Advanced Third Reich.  Nonsense!  knowing the intricacies of the rules was vital to playing the game.  For instance, I remember that it was vital that the Axis player, in setting up the game, include an airbase on the French border in order to advance that airbase into France (or Belgium).  It was nearly fatal if the German player failed to do so.  That was a small thing (A3R was a fantastic game), but it goes to show that games as complex as these really aren't intuitive.

MWIF is not intuitive.

Its systems for movement of naval units and its subphases for all three types of combat (air-to-air, naval, and land) are unlike those for any other war game (I own and have played over 100 board war games).

However, gimmicks are few and far between. Almost anything that a player chooses to do can be offset by his opponent. That is, for every great offense, there is a great defense; and vice-a-versa.

Of course, if you move your units into vulnerable positions, make attacks at low odds, waste time dithering about in unimportant theaters of the war, etc., you will be properly punished - unless your opponent makes similar mistakes.

But you need to have a grand strategy from the start as to with whom you are going to go to war, and when, and what you are going to build to support that war plan. You need to be consistent in deploying your forces operationally to support your strategy. And you need to know the basics of tactics: offensive and defensive for all 3 branches of the armed forces.

[Numdydar]

A good option for you for A3R is there is a scenerio developed for The Operational Art of War III that recreated A3R [:)] You can check it out here (along with a bunch of other good scenerios for TOAW III, especially Directive 21)

http://www.dizium.net/TOAW

You can also find another version of 3rd Reich (also for TOAW III) here. But this one starts in May, 1942 versus Sept 1939.

http://www.wargamecollege.net/TRdocs.zip

I actually have the old AH computer version still on my hard drive [X(]. I use an very nice upgrade to DosBox, DFend, to run it on my Win 7 64bit Pc

http://dfendreloaded.sourceforge.net/

I hope you find this useful [:)]

Edit wrong year for Poland invasion lol.

[paulderynck]

ORIGINAL: Klydon

I have played both Third Reich and WiF on the table. We used to play a lot of Third Reich back in the day. WiF from my experience was up to 4th edition I think and was missing a lot of the add on modules that came later.

Basically, it isn't even close. WiF wins in so many different ways as a superior game over Third Reich. About the only thing Third Reich has going for it would be the smaller foot print the game needs in terms of space to set up.

I could have written the identical post.

[Grotius]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Silly question.  I know there's no AI upon release of WiF, but you will be able to PBEM, right?

Not a silly question at all. Right now, you can play another person via the internet using "Netplay." I start a game, I list you and me as the two players, we log into a "lobby," I message you, and you accept my request to play. Then we're playing, in real-time. You see every unit I place or move. If I fly a ground strike mission, you can respond by flying an interceptor, if you have one within range (half its printed range rounded up). If I move Japanese carriers into Coral Sea, and you have a couple US CVs there, the program asks you whether you want to try to intercept. It works quite nicely. The only downside is, you have to be online at the same time, as with Vassal. Right now Netplay is limited to two-person games, but Steve expects to expand it to six-player multiplayer shortly after release.

MWIF seems better suited for Netplay than PBEM, because so much of MWIF is interactive: I make a move, you get a chance to respond. If I declare a land combat, you can send in tactical bombers (or perhaps defensive naval bombardment, if the battle is coastal and you're playing with the defensive-bombardment optional rule). Then one of us gets to decide which land-combat table to use (blitzkrieg, which the attacker often prefers, or assault, which the defender may prefer). Any given turn has several air-mission phases, each of which can be preceded by enemy CAP or followed by enemy interception. Naval moves can be intercepted. If we have air-to-air combat, each side may have the opportunity to reorder their fighters and bombers (hiding the most precious bombers in the back of the air strike, say). Even figuring out Initiative for the new turn is interactive: we each roll a die, and one of us may get a chance to re-roll, at the cost of a negative die modifier for the next turn's Initiative roll.

All that said, PBEM could work well for the non-interruptable phases, such as Rail Movement and Land Movement. I haven't tried it in my testing, though, and I don't know if it's formally supported. I mean, informally, maybe you could set up a game in hotseat mode, make a series of non-interruptable moves, and save when you get to the first phase that's going to require an enemy decision. Then send the saved game to the opponent. I just don't know how practicable it would be. Maybe Steve can weigh in on that.

[composer99]

In the late game (1943+) with all the air units floating around I dare say PBEM will be a beast to play.

[Grotius]

The Luftwaffe braves the snow and launches ground strikes at Leningrad. If there were more time, the Germans would clear out the hex southeast of Leningrad and wait for fine weather, but there's a 70% chance the turn (and game) will end after this impulse.