What did you do today in World in Flames?

[paulderynck]

Still down as of 1 AM CST Dec 3.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: abulbulian

Shannon, the problem first occurred between 3am CST and 9am CST on Dec 2. Bill and I were playing before 3am and had restart via NetPlay thus we know it was working. When we tried to resume our game around 9am CST (-6 GMT) at we started to see the issue posted on this thread. I offered my services to Pip at Slitherine to help with issue, but he said he wasn't qualified to handle it and would pass it on to another person.

Appears the issues still persists at the time of this post.

Thanks. It's always useful to know when the accident occurred.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: abulbulian

Shannon, the problem first occurred between 3am CST and 9am CST on Dec 2. Bill and I were playing before 3am and had restart via NetPlay thus we know it was working. When we tried to resume our game around 9am CST (-6 GMT) at we started to see the issue posted on this thread. I offered my services to Pip at Slitherine to help with issue, but he said he wasn't qualified to handle it and would pass it on to another person.

Appears the issues still persists at the time of this post.

Thanks. It's always useful to know when the accident occurred.

The problem has been fixed. I was able to log in successfully a minute ago.

[jzardos]

Yes, it worked for me today!

[npilgaard]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck
You've obviously played a lot and all that you say is true. One of the really big considerations in this regard is the optional USSR-Japan Peace, so since that option is not yet available, I may be the one needing additional education on potential strategies for MWiF. [&:]

I think ones playing group plays an important part regarding which strategies one tend to apply or find become the standard ones. Fx the games I have played have mostly been in weekly (or in the later years bi-weekly) sessions - this means that the Russian player will have to wait maybe six months (real time) before the Germans attack. He likely wants a little action at some point before that (in addition to France - the CW player always seems to be partly taking over there for some reason ), so instead of doing the stuff-the-border strategy he will most likely go for e.g. Persia or a quick war in Manchuria.
But sounds like other strategies - e.g. stuffing - have been the standard ones to pursuit for other playing groups.

[paulderynck]

Too true. You can get into a rut playing the same folks. OTOH you can really deeply refine strategies. Back in the "good old days" (which were actually neither good, nor old), you had only one AH game to play for a year or two, and people tried out and perfected various strategies.

Our WiF group used to fight for Bessarabia, until we learned a few times how horrible that could be for the Axis - in an oil game, at least.

But since WiF takes a long time to play and certain strategies can take a long time to resolve, even after ten straight years of playing it, I feel like we've just scratched the surface.

But in general, for all major powers, it is a game of patience! Tactically, don't get sucked into making a bad attack because the weather turned up Rain and the turn could end. Strategically, don't attack Japan when Barb may be just around the corner; etc.

[brian brian]

boredom is the downfall of many an Allied playe, and that is definitely seen in weekly World in Flames play. I don't mean the game is boring, at all, but many, many players find playing defense boring, and they pick up the attack dice when they probably shouldn't, or launch a campaign they shouldn't, or go for an easy, but strategically completely inconsequential campaign, because it is more fun to attack things than to tenaciously defend things.

Axis players can actually have the same problem, attacking all the time, nearly every impulse, every turn, with little regard for the consequences of low probabilities of success. their numerical advantages over the Allies at the beginning of the game mask this, until it is too late.

[Dorb]

Updated to 1.0.5.0
No hurries, been messing with too many other games on the Holiday Sale at this time.[;)]

[WarHunter]

Too add to your comment paulderynck,

There certainly is an ebb and flow to the various sides, in a complete game.

The axis have many offensive opportunities right from the beginning. Where, when and with how much power is the axis in a nutshell. If the axis are playing to win and not playing to not lose, the allies are forced to play defensive. Choosing a key counterattack is a tool in the defensive toolbox, its not the only tool. There's a lot of sandpaper for grinding. Hammers for beating. Axes for chopping. And my favorite, the fine set of screwdrivers to needle the axis with.

If the axis have been stopped short of automatic victory conditions, the tide slowly turns.

The transition from offensive axis to defensive axis is the hardest moment to identify. It comes to each axis power in its own time. The key is realizing when the bunker needs a supply of booze. Ignoring it is folly. The longer its not addressed, the easier it is for the allies.

No more tailgate parties heading for Paris, Moscow, London, Chungking or Washington DC. All the roads lead back to Rome, Tokyo and Berlin.
A house-rule I've been comfortable with is, if you play the allies, you could surrender just about anytime you wanted to. But if you played the axis, it was for the duration and to the bunker. Of course any agreement by both sides could end a game.
(And who has not suffered from an act of pet, child/spouse, weather or emotionally unstable moments by players, that ended a game abruptly).

It comes down to a satisfaction from both sides they played a good game. Playing to the last impulse of the last turn over that last objective is a moment shared that comes along few times in gaming among friends.

May there be more contests in the future. Among old/new friends on this virtual gaming arena.

btw, My MWiF moment today. starting a new game with different options.

[Pax25]

Just purchased today. Never have I spent this much money on a computer game, but I simply had to add this to my collection. Have watched all the YouTube tutorials and now trying out the Barbarossa scenario. Looking forward to online play soon.

[Zorachus99]

ORIGINAL: Pax25

Just purchased today. Never have I spent this much money on a computer game, but I simply had to add this to my collection. Have watched all the YouTube tutorials and now trying out the Barbarossa scenario. Looking forward to online play soon.

Play solitaire mode at first.

I just found a few netplay bugs. [:D]

Steve is doing great fixing things though.

[Walker84]

So, I downloaded the game a week ago and my glossy manuals have also turned up.

As I have never played the board game before, I am slowly working my way through the game solitaire fashion in an attempt to understand all of the rules. As a War in the Pacific vet, I chose Guadalcanal as an 'entry level' scenario to help me to get a feel for the mechanics of naval and air combined ops, plus an opportunity to compare and contrast both games. They are very different!

So far, Japan has captured Guadalcanal which I allowed for historical reasons rather than being a key victory condition. I have also spent a fair bit of time learning how to move ships and air units around, transport different unit types, and launch an amphibious assault. There have been various air vs naval encounters but no major Coral Sea-type CV action has taken place as yet. I'm tempted to just throw the main fleets next turn together to see what happens!

It certainly has been a steep learning curve - although there's plenty of help in the tutorials & manual I was too impulsive to watch and read everything and decided to wade in. Along the way I have made basic errors, e.g. losing a unit to stacking limits, failing to load a unit on a TRNS correctly, spending ages figuring out why I can't end an impulse due to a greyed out box etc. etc. However, solitaire mode can be most forgiving!

Hoping that some of the netplay glitches I have been reading about will have diminished by the time I come to play a live opponent.

When I have played through Guadalcanal I am planning to move on to Barbarossa to get a feel for the land campaign; afterwards I will probably see if I can improve on Guadalcanal second time round, then I might start the full campaign. The forum continues to be a great source for a new player, reading AARs and other tips has been invaluable.

[Zorachus99]

I wish every new player would approach the game the same way you are.

By the time you get the hang of the mechanics, the pro's will be there to educate you on the operational art of war. (oops did I steal that from somewhere?)

However...

Definitely have a big carrier battle / Ship battle, and save before you search for each other.

Repeat that battle 4+ times, and report back on your findings I'm sure you will notice that outside of failing the find with both players, the battle result is almost never the same.

This will help you a lot. [8D]

[Shannon V. OKeets]

Any naval combat that isn't completely lopsided in the favor of one side is terrifying for both.

[Walker84]

Thanks for the feedback. Well, I did have a couple of successful naval actions with land-based air also involved. Interestingly the main surface battle fleets never got together as it ended up in a contest of naval air just like in the real war.

In the Gulf of Bengal, Japanese Hayabusas won the die roll and AX'd the elite Spitfire VB unit protecting the CW Far East Fleet. Then, in the Coral Sea, CV Essex was lost to naval air. Other ships were aborted and/or damaged but here is the final destroyed pool tally as the game drew to an end in J/F '43.

[Walker84]

The only thing I don't follow is the Allied decisive victory result as I can't figure out how the victory conditions were satisfied with no strategic objectives changing hands and only 1 CV lost, plus I suspect I may not have kept the requisite number of Japanese convoys in the S China Seas. Anyway, its on to Barbarossa next.

[Walker84]

Meant to embed the picture...

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Walker84

Meant to embed the picture...

The convoys were crucial for Japan. Without oil, they would have been unable to fly air units and sail ships. The 40 points looks like there were a lot of missing convoys.

It's real important to know the victory conditions.

===

One of the most infuriating games I ever played was at an Origins convention in the 1970's. The people running the tournament had made up multiple secret victory conditions for each side and gave them out at the beginning of each round. You only knew what your own victory conditions were. After completely destroying my opponent, so he had no units left on the board and I held every hex on the map, I found out that I had lost because he only had to destroy a few of my units. Livid doesn't begin to describe it.

[LiquidSky]

The rule book is rather vague on victory conditions. And spread out in a few different spots. In the RaW, you bid for powers, and you add that bid to a base value.

The rules on bidding in Volume 1. are on page 99-100. They say that in a multiplayer game you can bid. Page 136 tells you when victory is checked.
Volume 2 Page 125-126 tells us how to get an automatic victory, and lists all the objective hexes. It tells you how to add up victory points, and to subtract your bid. It mentions subtracting your modified bid, and points you to the third book...

RAC 23.1.2 Which doesn't exist.

There is a little chart in each scenario (pages 86-87 in Volume 1 for Global War), which lists Historical objectives. Nothing mentions using this in the bidding process. I would assume that this chart is what you are supposed to use to modify the bid except:

It differs greatly from RaW.

Volume 1: Global War....Germany. Modify by 0.
RaW Modify by 10.

RaC Japan: 9
RaW Japan: 5

The number of objectives in RaC and Raw are the same, so why the huge swing in favour of the Germans? Is the Historical objectives list in the scenario used for victory, or is it just an information thing?

There is nothing on pages 186-187 of Vol2, which tells the differences between Raw and RaC to say that victory has changed between the two games.

[Walker84]

Thanks for the helpful responses guys.[:)]

Steve, I'm sure it was the convoys that made the difference. I saw these big convoy units in the Philippines at the start and broke them up to transport reinforcements from the Home Islands to Truk and Rabaul. Subsequently I forgot all about re-positioning them. I guess in the main scenarios you would soon discover if you were not sending enough oil and resources in the right direction.

So, the important lesson is to be clear about the victory conditions from the outset and check again in good time before the scenario draws to a close. I was mainly concerned with play-testing the game mechanics on this occasion but will watch out for this in future. Incidentally, I did locate the Guadalcanal VC conditions again from the drop down menu on the last turn but, as this was after naval movement, it would have been too late to change anything. Aw well, we live and learn.