What did you do today in World in Flames?

[wolf14455]

Yesterday me and my co owner of this game tried to play this long awaited game. We bought it when it came out but hadnt got a chance to try it togehter. First we tried Barbarossa but after 3 events where game didnt find the way to ask for end of action after a groundstrike we thought we go for broke and started Global instead. But after +2 hours (was planned to do at least 6 h) we called it quits. We used the best tool in the game, autosave to go back every time things maked us stuck. And the game didnt help us much as computergames do, was more like a computer aided boardgame my co-owner thought. He is an awsome opponent in more complez ww2 games like Gary Griegsbys "War in Russia" but he thought this game was a fight with computer forced boardgame rules and not very exciting. Maybee I can make him play again when AI comes for some of the Powers like USA,China etc and the game is more like a computergame with less bugs and freezes.
If someone in Sweden want to buy it with all three books we can let them hav it without the huge 500skr in postage. Why do I sell it, you thinking, as I still rule for the games potential and eventual awsomeness. The answer is an easy one. I cant afford bearing the cost my self and couldent afford to buy it if I was buying it alone.
So as I live in Gothenburg Sweden and anyone think a trip here to fetch it or pay for less in Europe postage I let you have it. PM me if you interested.
Sorry dev for me not economicly can carry the game to support your huge effort.
cheers

[Numdydar]

Why does everyone expect perfection from a game this complex upon release? Do you honestly think a single developer along with a small handful of beta testers could do this when major studios cannot? How many differnet PC's/internet connections could they really test on?

If the game is so fustrating just wait until a few more patches and then give it a try. And we are not talking about months before the next patch, we are talking next week, And another one after the 6th. Is it really too much to have wait a few weeks? If so, then you should not be playing any computer games if this is your expectation.

[wolf14455]

We not talking about me but my co owner. He want me to buy him out. But thanx for understanding my txt. Good job.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: 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.

A comparison of the Scenario Booklet PDF included with MWIF and the corresponding section from the Players Manual.

[paulderynck]

Another helping of crow, monsieur? [;)]

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

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.

I would still be mad about it. [:(]

You do have my sympathy Steve even though it is a bit late.

[Numdydar]

ORIGINAL: Swedewolf

If someone in Sweden want to buy it with all three books we can let them hav it without the huge 500skr in postage. Why do I sell it, you thinking, as I still rule for the games potential and eventual awsomeness. The answer is an easy one. I cant afford bearing the cost my self and couldent afford to buy it if I was buying it alone.
So as I live in Gothenburg Sweden and anyone think a trip here to fetch it or pay for less in Europe postage I let you have it. PM me if you interested.
Sorry dev for me not economicly can carry the game to support your huge effort.
cheers

Can you please explain how I misunderstood your post please? Since when you discussed 'buying out' you always used 'I" and not 'my friend'?

[wolf14455]

Hehe low grade Swedish translated to English combined with light dyslexia. Sorry for my temper.

[Numdydar]

That what I figured [:)] so no problem

[mldtchdog]

Today the French resistance immediately made an appearance in Le Havre, one of the only two hexes in German occupied France that did not have a German unit there and of the those two the only hex that did not lie in Zone of Control. Like the very next impulse after Germany entered and left that hex and the turn ended.

[LiquidSky]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: 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.

A comparison of the Scenario Booklet PDF included with MWIF and the corresponding section from the Players Manual.

EDIT: Image removed for bandwidth

This comparison does nothing except make me suspect that you and the people responsible for writing the players handbook have never played a game with the actual victory conditions from the RaW.

Let me explain how bidding works...in the board game. Better yet, from the very same place you got your image from, I pull this:








Basically you bid a number in auction style, starting at -20. Highest bidder gets to pick any country (or group of countries) that are available.

In the example, the highest bid is 5. She picks USA/CHINA. Her modified bid is her bid (5), plus USA (17) + CHINA (2) for a modified bid of 24.
On the next page, the example goes on showing how the rest of the bidding works, USING THIS CHART!

The historical controlled objectives is just to help you bid intelligently, and is not actually used in the bidding process. For example, Susan would have had a final score of 15 - 24 = -9.

This chart is rather important for determining victory, and it is missing from the books.

[Numdydar]

Well untill more that 2 people can play the game I really see no need for this to be included yet do you? As we do not know how the game will work for more than two people at a time, but I would assume that this would be included at that point.

I would much rather the current crop of bugs, etc. be corrected versus adding this in when it is not even needed yet.

[Dorb]

Downloaded version 1.07. But really must confess, I have not messed much with this game lately, as I have been busy grabbing other games on the holiday Sale and playing them. Like I said, no rush with this, until the AI comes out.[;)]

[WarHunter]

I've finished Mar/Apr40 for my AAR. Working on May/Jun40.

Yes! shameless promotion. [8D]

[Dorb]

Downloaded Version 1.00.09.00 [;)]

[brian brian]

well I haven't played World in Flames today but I might run through an impulse when I get 'home' in an hour or so

but over the last 3 weeks I have been trying a solitaire game using the Australian resources > Canada & Canadian resources > UK convoy routing I first read about here, probably from Paul D.

I have to say that it is quite a superior set up to anything I have come up with before. It burns a little more oil in production for the Commonwealth than I am used to, but that should work out OK as the Axis will likely be demoralized by the time the Allies feel any oil pinch late in the game. This is because this routing brings all 4 French overseas resources to France, along with the Iraqi oil, which is something I've never accomplished before as the Allies.

The result is that France is a fair bit stronger, with more BPs to get units on the board for the spring of 1940. When you combine this with my preferred CW strategy of pumping BPs into France for a few turns from N/D 39 through M/A 40, the Germans have a tough go of it.

If….. the German strategy is to take down France without using an Offensive Chit, and without generating any non-necessary US Entry Chits in 1939.

My first run through of this worked so well - Paris fell in Nov/Dec 40, with a huge BEF building houses to stay in out in Brittany - that the Axis threw in the towel. I now started another game to work on an improved Axis response to this strong France blocking them, before their preferred strategy for the mid-game. I think I have that figured out …. we'll see …..

I would say that shipping Australian resources to Canada is a fairly gamey thing to do. But then the Axis strategy I am trying to counter as the Allies, though a standard WiF strategy, is fairly gamey as well.

[Numdydar]

Well that is really gamey. There were no major Canadian ports on the Pacific coast that could handle that kind shipping. Matter of fact there still aren't any to this day. Not to mention that the rail capicity between the west and east coast could not handle that amout of load either. So it may look like we need our first house rule to not allow this type of shipping path.

As I have never played the board game, was this allowed or is this somrthing new that has been discovered due to MWiF?

[brian brian]

No, that is just part of World in Flames. I'm sure the city of Vancouver would dispute your analysis of Canadian west coast shipping capacity. [;)] But in WiF you could just land the resources in San Diego or Mexico first anyway, and burn up the rail networks of several countries at once instead.

It does pay to recall that World in Flames is designed to be as simple as possible, believe it or not. With as few special case rules as possible, while you can still play all of WWII on a global level. It achieves this at the expense of realism at times. There are ways around this, sure, but they are unlikely to be implemented formally in the game. That's just the way it is. No one wants to play Quartermaster in Flames.

[Numdydar]

Yes Vancover is a port, but it certainly would not have had the capacity in 1939 to be able to handle a massive amount of goods like that.

Also until the US was in the war, only Canadian ports and rail lines could be used. Which of course is why this never occured in the real war. If something like this was at all doable in the real war, it would have been done as Oz is a lot closer to Canada than the UK.

I also agree the game simplifies things for the reasons you mention. Of course this simplification allows actions that I would consider impossible to occur in RL. Not just unlikely or difficult, but impossible. Of course that is just my opinion [:)]

All I can say I would not want to play that way since it obviously 'breaks' the system. Remember all games are really systems. So if you push any system to extremes or do things outside the design paramenters, the system cannot handle it so it breaks down. In this case it allows ahistorical prodcuction to occur without any coresponding downside, like needing more CPs or reducing UK BPs to increase Frances, etc. Just beacuse a system allows something to done, does not always means it is a good thing to do it. Of course if finding ways to 'break the system' is part of the enjoyment of playing games, then that is fine too [:)] it just does not appeal to me.

[Centuur]

Neutral countries liked the trade coming from transporting raw materials of the other countries. As long as there weren't weapons transported through their countries, they were OK with the additional use of their transportation systems. A lot of goods were exported by South American countries to Spain and than transported into Germany for example. Merchant vessels of nations at war were welcome in any neutral port. So if the CW would have set up a large convoy line towards the US east coast, they would have gotten the trains in the US to transport the goods into Canada as long as they would pay for the transportation...