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.
I am not much of a multiplayer kind of guy. I play more against an AI. Given that this is not an option, I was wondering if Solitaire play could be an option for me as the game looks very intriguing. However, the thought of strategizing against myself seems kind of daft as obviously there is no element of surprise. How do you solitaire players enjoy it? What makes it fun for you, given that there is no fog of war? Thanks for your impressions as I am quite interested in the idea of this game.
I am not much of a multiplayer kind of guy. I play more against an AI. Given that this is not an option, I was wondering if Solitaire play could be an option for me as the game looks very intriguing. However, the thought of strategizing against myself seems kind of daft as obviously there is no element of surprise. How do you solitaire players enjoy it? What makes it fun for you, given that there is no fog of war? Thanks for your impressions as I am quite interested in the idea of this game.
Cheers
Mangler
Hi - first of all the program makes it really easy to play against yourself. Secondly, your strategy might not be a surprise for long against an experienced player. In Solitaire your opponent is as good as you, which means that your strategy is immediatly tested for flaws. You will be amazed that your opponent will find holes in your strategy you would not have come up with in the first place. You might want to plan ahead a "standard" build and placement strategy for your opponent until the moment he would recognize your strategy.
I have played a couple of solitaire games over the last 2 months and enjoyed that. The advantage is that you either can let your strategy "happen" to see how it evolves, and/or you have a more intelligent opponent than the AI will be (probably - given you are in this hobby and interested in global wargames).
(although Steve might surprise us on the AI).
Playing against a live opponent is of course even more fun.
My first time playing WiF, and here is what I am finding. A game like Strategic Command 2 GC, AoD and AoC they have nurtured the AI from the beginning and there is a nice editor. But to me it would be horrible solitaire because the front end is so simple - you're just moving units around. Not that it is a simple game, per se.
WiF there is so much going on with the options and turn cycles, you're really not sure what's going to happen. So even in solitaire, there is that one more (long) turn feel. And I am just playing Barbarossa. Planning global strategy for both sides is sure to be considerably more engrossing.
My first time playing WiF, and here is what I am finding. A game like Strategic Command 2 GC, AoD and AoC they have nurtured the AI from the beginning and there is a nice editor. But to me it would be horrible solitaire because the front end is so simple - you're just moving units around. Not that it is a simple game, per se.
WiF there is so much going on with the options and turn cycles, you're really not sure what's going to happen. So even in solitaire, there is that one more (long) turn feel. And I am just playing Barbarossa. Planning global strategy for both sides is sure to be considerably more engrossing.
That was my fear as having Strategic Command 2 myself, I would never dream of soloing that type of game (again due to the simplistic interface) and I was worried this would be similar but I do now get a feeling it will be a totally different experience so I just gone ahead and bought it anyway. If it does not work, I guess it was one of my most expensive poor game decisions but whom know where it will lead? I wanna be the world champion and beat everyone to a pulp on this muhahah
Really an impossible question. It's like 'why do people drink beer?' I mean, I know of plenty that don't like the taste. But I like it.
Why do they still sell board games? I mean, opponents for board games, they are rare and that's been the truth since 1970. But they still sell.
There is simply nothing wrong with playing a side, making the best possible moves you can reason out, then putting the other side's hat on and doing the exact same thing again.
It comes down to, do you like the subject matter enough to want to examine it while simulating it. I can't for instance enjoy WW3 concept games. But I have emotional baggage called Cold War syndrome. I didn't think the 60s and the 70s were very fun. Thus, I have no real interest in games of that subject matter, so it's not relevant to me personally if Flashpoint is any good.
But I like examining the time period through board games. They also help visualize the scope of the event. They allow you to ponder, what would have happened, if they had pursued this course of action? Good games permit a decent window.
Sometimes a game is just a game, and sometimes a game is just an interesting interactive tool.
I will likely never have the chance to play this against a living breathing adversary. But I likely will greatly enjoy playing it.
Everyone approaches 'fun' in their own way.
I have too many too complicated wargames, and not enough sufficiently interested non wargamer friends.
I would much rather play against an opponent but I just do not have the time to commit to a long game. Since most AI's are a joke I often play all my games solitaire. Yes, I do have fun but it's sort of hard to catch myself by surprise or make a surprise landing in an unexpected place. I just give myself a few house rules to make it a bit more challenging and if the option is available turn the fog of war to max.
Often turns take so long I actually do forget about units I cannot see and move into a place that I regret once the opposing unit appears. I also try to set limits on units for example, the CW cannot have more than X amount of units in North Africa before 42 and must keep X amount of units in the UK or it could trigger a Sea lion event, also I make the Germans keep X amount of units as garrisons in occupied counties...stuff like that keeps me from overwhelming a weaker force. I have to work with what I have free and it helps keep the game interesting.
*Warning: Dr. Foo is not an actual doctor.
Do not accept or follow any medical advice*
I think solitaire World in Flames is an OK experience. There isn't any Fog of War in the game anyway; all the units are out for anyone to see what is coming. The solitaire German player defending France can't cover every beach perfectly anyway.
The one more difficult thing to do in a solitaire game is decide Japanese grand strategy, especially with regard to Russia. The historical detente is certainly a useful option. Or you can decide ahead of time to purposely explore a Japanese or Russian DOW and make one of the two countries play without awareness of that for a few turns. Or you can set up a small chart with a die roll to decide what to do on that key question.
In Europe there are far less of these worries. A little bit with how Italy gets into the war, but it is not as complicated as Japan<>Russia.
I have to chime in here, as I bought this game without any interest in solitaire play and more to learn and in advance of the it being PBEM capable and down the road, with an AI. Yes, as much as I can't believe it, solitaire is fun! As a complete novice to WIF, I can actually say, I am enjoying learning via solitaire. If you are on fence and don't have any qualms about it being what it is today and can afford it, I whole heartedly say, take the plunge.
*Formerly known as Marcus the Leper, time has taken a toll and now I am simply a skeleton...*
I have been playing Guadalcanal over and over for about a year as a beta tester and every battle is different, every outcome is different, I have played it as a fast start [novice rules] but the real game starts when you start a new game and you put in the optional rules that you prefer. Many optional rule do not change the game much such as adding divisons, artillery etc, but the carrier planes rule, the limited overseas supply rule, the amphibious rule and the oil rule change the game dramatically IMO.
In my AAr on I think page 6 [Battle of the Coral sea] was played strictly by program rules the only hedging I did was I forced interceptions instead of letting the computer decide but all combat was decided by the computer and rarely did I ever see the same outcome twice in a row if ever.
It is possible that no matter how many time you sail your fleet into waters where enemy fleets are patrolling you may never see combat, depending on the die roll and the weather. Is that a good thing I dont know but it could be pretty realistic. If I remember right there were only several naval encounters in 4 years of the Pacific theater,
1-Battle of the Coral sea 2-Battle of Midway 3- Battle of Leyte gulf, minor skirmishes around Salvo island near Guadalcanal.
WiF is one of the best solitaire games because it combines things you can't control - like the weather and turn length and whether searching a sea zone will be successful*; with things you can control but must constantly make decisions as to what and when and how. You can't move all your units every impulse, so you have to make trade-offs. These are the ingredients of what made WiF the best WWII boardgame ever published, and what kept it popular for over 25 years.
The amazing thing is that after all those considerations and decisions, when you change sides, you suddenly see things you didn't anticipate moments before, even though they were there staring at you. This fact alone means solitaire play will hone and improve your skills when it comes time to play someone else.
*I could also say land battles have variable results too here, but if you take too many chances with low odds attacks, you'll get slaughtered by the you on the other side providing he doesn't do the same.
*I could also say land battles have variable results too here, but if you take too many chances with low odds attacks, you'll get slaughtered by the you on the other side providing he doesn't do the same.
Hahaha! Well, the me on the other side is pretty stupid too, so it should be a wonderfully even match! I can't wait to start playing.
I think MWIF is great fun solitaire! I've played board wargames solitaire my whole life, but WiF is better-suited for solo play than most. As others have said, there isn't much fog of war in the conventional sense: you know where units are. But there is fog of war in another sense: you don't know when turns will end, how weather will change, which units will appear, when the US will enter, etc. These uncertainties bring surprises to both sides.
More generally, I've always found that the "other me" sees stuff the "first me" doesn't see, and vice-versa. Axis Grotius will make a series of moves that seem devastating -- and then Allied Grotius will find holes in them that Axis Grotius honestly never noticed.
Call me crazy, but I think solitaire MWIF is at least as fun as playing against an AI.
This fact alone means solitaire play will hone and improve your skills when it comes time to play someone else.
And what about those who never intend to play anyone else? It does noting for me or anyone else that just wants an AI player to play against. Who doesn't care one ounce about playing himself. How you can call that fun is beyond me. It's the 'worst' possible situation and gameplay for me and I would never pay $99 for a game just to play myself. If I'm going to pay $99 for a game it had better have an AI of some kind. For $99 it had better be an awesome ai as well.
This fact alone means solitaire play will hone and improve your skills when it comes time to play someone else.
And what about those who never intend to play anyone else? It does noting for me or anyone else that just wants an AI player to play against. Who doesn't care one ounce about playing himself. How you can call that fun is beyond me. It's the 'worst' possible situation and gameplay for me and I would never pay $99 for a game just to play myself. If I'm going to pay $99 for a game it had better have an AI of some kind. For $99 it had better be an awesome ai as well.
warspite1
Fine - so two options - one, wait for the AI or two, give the game a miss given the cost. Why do you need to go from thread to thread bitching about the lack of an AI (in the initial release) when this has been known about for ages?
Now Maitland, now's your time!
Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
And what about those who never intend to play anyone else? It does noting for me or anyone else that just wants an AI player to play against. Who doesn't care one ounce about playing himself. How you can call that fun is beyond me. It's the 'worst' possible situation and gameplay for me and I would never pay $99 for a game just to play myself. If I'm going to pay $99 for a game it had better have an AI of some kind. For $99 it had better be an awesome ai as well.
Suit yourself. I'd suggest you put your 99 bucks in the bank now and when the AI version comes out, you can buy it and maybe the interest you earn will cover any upcharge for it.
Given your current state of mind I can almost guarantee you that you will find the AI to be "awesome", no matter what.
Oh dear, so many people find AI better than their own play. I do not get this. I play all my games versus myself. Never have seen an AI worth my own play.
but whom know where it will lead? I wanna be the world champion and beat everyone to a pulp on this muhahah
