- 999-MWIF-Gaming-Experience.png (17.21 KiB) Viewed 672 times
I would say that most folks play (M)WIF as a game and the majority of those play it multi-player. I have no idea what that breakdown is and what the breakdown is between 2 & 3+ player games. And further what the breakdown is between non-competitive versus competitive games. My definition of non-competitive is a game played for the experience, including teachable moments and do overs with the main objectives to have fun playing the game and experience community the assemble group of players either physically or on-line. Now competitive play I would say is also fun for most players, maybe not such much by those “outgunned” by the more experienced and talent players. However; I say the biggest difference is that competitive play is focused on winning the game over the other players, even those controlling major power(s) allied to your side.
Now let me back up and talk about learning the game, working out strategies and working out tactics. Those are definitely valid plays but I dare say very few of such games go the distance. These are very specialized play to improve one’s ability and hence enjoyment of (M)WIF. Except for the smaller scenarios (e.g., Barbarossa, Guadalcanal), which I would dare say most folks move beyond after learning how to play and gaining experience to play well enough, (M)WIF is a major time commitment to play through to the bloody end. So, I don’t see folks playing these game types (learning, working out strategies, tactics) out to the bitter end in say a global war scenario. My experience has been that while you can learn the rules and learn how to push units around the map by yourself (i.e., solo) you need to have some play against more experienced (2 or 3+) player(s) to properly learn how to play the game well enough and learn proper strategy and tactics.
Now to my favorite game type which is counterfactual play of which I defined two types, historical competitive and historical fiction. Historical competitive is where each major power is played competitively within the framework of (M)WIF, optional & house rules with “gaming” decisions made for each major power against the political and historical record of the time. The goal is NOT to get the same outcome as the second world war but to simulate the situation and let it take you where it may. And hopefully it takes you to a place where the intermediate and final points are “believable” and “realistic” alternatives to the actual historical record. To me, as an amateur WW2 historian, it’s fun to argue how believable and realistic such alternative points are.
My last category is counterfactual (historical fiction). In this category one starts with a desired counterfactual outcome and sees what it takes within (M)WIF to achieve that outcome. They then assess whether the what it took is believable or not. Now the counterfactual (historical fiction) is NOT my cup of tea. My cup of tea is the counterfactual (historical competitive) simulation and that’s what I’ve been striving to accomplish with this current and previous solo games for some many years now.
One other thing I’d like to touch on is the subject of 1 player (solo) competitive and counterfactual (historical competitive) play/simulation. To me this means playing each side and/or major power to the best of your ability. But it also means (for me) establishing and playing to clear objectives supported by decision aids & algorithms that attempts to mitigate solo player biases & complete knowledge that is embedded in the 1000’s of decisions made for each major power throughout the war (or simulation). I’ve indirectly shared some of these with you throughout this game. I’m still developing them and tinkering with ones that were developed and used even at the start. As I move forward with this AAR, I plan to explicitly highlight such decision aids & algorithms. Ultimately, I would like to assemble enough such aids & algorithms to support a poor man’s, manual AI. That is, one that’s manually implemented through solo play.
