MWIF is created after the WIF board game. It follows it's rules almost flawlessly, which is a relief compared with other games and cultural productions, like films/books.
So, except for the very few cases where Steven, usually for practical reasons related to programming has decided not to follow exactly the rules, what you complain of, comes from WIF rules.
And I absolutely agree that WIF would need a low luck option. But being WIF a game for a niche of players, if you make it less luck dependant it could be even less popular, because it would turn towards becoming a chess-style game, where there are pre-programmed actions, and the best players always would win, worse losing always. Anyway, without discarding luck completely, lower luck incidence should be much better IMO.
For example: Although I have been very lucky in my current game in dogfighting and sub war, which are very important, I made two intents to take Egypt and I was unsuccessful, even though the Italians had an overwhelming advantage in the East Med and had conquered Malta and Gibraltar, because I tried to find them and unsupply them (they were in Libya) like 30 times and we only fought like 3, some of them with advantage of the roll for them so I couldnt harm them or expel them.
The result was that all my expeditionary force was exterminated twice, by sheer luck, and that changed the war for me.
kjgokc2007,
MWIF is committed to truthfully emulate the boardgame WIF by ADG. So your demand for less "Luck Rolls" and less decisive ones must be directed to Harry @ADG in the first place, not at Matrix or developer Steve.
WIF started in the '80s in the first editions with D6 (six-sided dice) tables for all purposes. Over the decades of development the dice changed to D10, the tables became more elaborate, the results more varied. So you basically got already, what you deem to be necessary.
The example you cite, USE with the appropriate increase in BP tied to it, is actually proving this very well: Despite depending on many different rolls/draws stemming from many different actions, USE tends to hit required levels almost always at more or less historical deadlines, plus/minus 1 turn. Actually, this USE system is far better controllable by the players than most other subsystems in MWIF.
You seem to have recognised variable game turn lengths and extreme/unusual weather events have far bigger impact on the game than individual combat rolls at air/land/sea. This observation is correct. It is one major reason for the huge replayability value of MWIF and why there is still an active followership of the game after so many years.
Individual battles are usually exactly not an all or nothing affair, quite the opposite. Usually both sides do take damage in battle, as much as this can be modelled at this grand strategic level.
May I ask at this point in time, how many full games of MWIF Global War scenario you have played till finish at JA '45 with each side?
I do not understand, what you refer to with "You need an Axis Africa Core" ? I can imagine many different good reasons for fighting for control of the Mediterranean theater.
The most comfortable way to play MWIF is via sending the game file back and forth, no screen/keyboard sharing external programs needed. It is also the method to have a real multiplayer game with 4,5 or 6 players, as WIF was originally designed for.
kjgokc2007 wrote: Sat Mar 21, 2026 8:01 pm
This game has way to many Luck Rolls that are too decisive... Example the 20-40 Build points tied to US Entry.
Long Turns, Radical Weather, battles that are all or nothing. Both sides should take damage in any battle.
You need an Axis Africa Core. Without out it there is no incentive to even fight for the Med.
Things that need fixing for this game.
You should highlight using Screen and Keyboard tools like Anyviewer to play hot seat games. about the only way you can play vs a Human.
