overall balance

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
Patrice sent me two files last week that listed the # of objective cities held by each of the 8 major powers, turn by turn from the start of the game thruogh to the bitter end. In combination with player bids, this lets players devise a score for games that end early, and to maintain a running score, turn by turn too. I haven't thought out all the details yet, but the raw data is suficient to make this happen.

There are two files: one for the historical outcomes, and the second for average outcomes based on a collection of actual WIF games. Of course I am certain that the optional rules and quality of players varied all over the place, but nonetheless, this simple statistic is something to use. I will probably add the ability to create a third file where the players put in their own numbers (most likely a modified version of one of the other 2 files).

I'd just like to add that these files are not from me alone they are those from the Annual 2000, officially published by ADG in 2000.

[Norman42]

ORIGINAL: brian brian

I think victory conditions are more important in operational and tactical games rather than strategic level games.

Absolutely.

I do know this - quibbling with the victory conditions never keeps anyone from playing.

On this I would have to add the disclaimer "...for the first half of the war."

So very many games that I have played, or watched, or read after-action-reports of have had one side of the other toss in the towel in mid 1943 as they felt "we can't win on time no matter what we do." They look at the map and the date and realize they can't achieve the historical position by XXXX date, even if they aren't far behind on victory points.

That J/A 1945 Axis Conquered date hangs like a sword over the heads of WiF players.

By its very nature, a game based on a full World Strategic Campaign of WW2 will have difficulty with this issue. To maintain history, the game requires one side to 'lose' for the first half, and the other side to 'lose' for the second half.

Most tactical games aren't quite so hamstrung by history.

[loricas]

ORIGINAL: Ohio Jones

We never got around to playing WIFFE, but my opponent and I had cobbled together WiF 4, Planes, Ships and Convoys, along with DoD. I will freely admit to being an inferior player to my opponent 9 times out of 10 -- but I did mange two defeats of Germany, one where some fortunate coup results (we stopped using coups after this) brought key minors onto the allied side, and one where I managed US entry so aggressively that I was able to bring the US in prior to Pearl Harbour, and had Americans in Europe in 1942. Still took a long time to bring Germany down, but was well worth it!

I've also lost as Germany in 1940, solely due to tactical errors, and - this one is impressive, but not in a good way - I once lost the entire pacific ocean as the Allies (even Western Samoa) and had to ship units around the Cape to reinforce India against the Japanese.

Yes, in four and even in five edition this appen normally

[loricas]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

On an alternative scoring system to bidding,
I will probably add the ability to create a third file where the players put in their own numbers (most likely a modified version of one of the other 2 files).

very good idea. so we have a attendable statistic of games outcomes
[&o][&o][&o]

[loricas]

ORIGINAL: brian brian

I do know this - quibbling with the victory conditions never keeps anyone from playing. [:)]

there are two kind of players: the player that play for fun: for this victory condition have a small impact. as I and i think you are.

the player that play for win: for this, victory condition have great impact

Now victory is at individual player/MP basis. the RAW have a fews bugs.

what appen in a net game, after some months of play, if someone use one of this bugs (the non-agression pact rules for exemple)??

so is possible if we found a simple new victory sistem to multi-players game or implement the bid sistem of DOD or PATIF where one player win only if the side win from start?? it' s basically the same, the only difference is that Italy for exemple win only if axis win ??

[composer99]

One important thing to remember is that the Axis is already supposed to be doing better than historically in WiF. I've already posted in some other topic on this point, but it is worth repeating.
 
Germany, at the end of the July/August 1945 turn, is supposed to have 10 objectives. Japan is supposed to have 5. Only Italy is expected to be conquered with 0 objectives. Japan, in other words, is a bit worse off than historically, but Germany is doing fantastically well compared to history.
 
So the Allies do not have to win the war outright by the end of the game to win a game of WiF. All they need to do is control 53 or more of 67 objectives (modified by bidding).

[Norman42]

ORIGINAL: composer99

One important thing to remember is that the Axis is already supposed to be doing better than historically in WiF. I've already posted in some other topic on this point, but it is worth repeating.

Germany, at the end of the July/August 1945 turn, is supposed to have 10 objectives. Japan is supposed to have 5. Only Italy is expected to be conquered with 0 objectives. Japan, in other words, is a bit worse off than historically, but Germany is doing fantastically well compared to history.

So the Allies do not have to win the war outright by the end of the game to win a game of WiF. All they need to do is control 53 or more of 67 objectives (modified by bidding).

All very true.

However, I have found the psychological effect of being "one year behind" in capturing objectives finds the Allies often discouraged to the point of quitting in mid game. Especially for less-than-hardcore players who know history better than they know WiF victory rules.

Being unable to match history's pace is a very strong disincentive, regardless of how the 'victory' math looks on paper.

[brian brian]

Those players should keep going. It sounds like they might not know the awesome power of a Red Army well supplied with Offensive Chits. The Russians can come back from Siberia if the West is doing enough things right. Japan can be an egg shell by 1944 as well; crack it open and suddenly things change. Allied power grows year by year in WiF and you have to stick with the effort. At it's peak in the spring of 1945 they can really go.

It's not only worry about achieving objectives that lead players to start over. As the piece count keeps going up, up, up that nice low-unit-density struggle of 1940 starts to look appealing again.

[npilgaard]

If one wants to play the end-game in a more historical way with the axis conquered (or almost conquered) one option is to keep playing until that is achieved.
In our group we have played a game where the conditions for ending it was, that all axis powers must be reduced to less than half of the usual victory conditions (i.e. Germany 4, Japan 2, Italy 0) - in that way the fixed end date is avoided (and thus its impact on late production etc.), the allies are allowed the feeling of accomplishing something and those '46 units (we played with PatiF units as well) got on the table.
Victory points were of course modified (iirc each allied power got -1 VP for each turn after s/o '45, and then there was a bonus to balance this).
In that way the allies don't have to do it in a fixed time - they will probably keep playing most of the time due to their syuperior position on the map (but can of course lose the game VP-wise if they take to long).
Drawbacks are an even longer game(!) and that the axis get kicked while lying down already.

I would like to see an option to keep playing in MWiF after s/o '45 - don't need any modifications to the AIO etc. just an option to not end the game.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: npilgaard

If one wants to play the end-game in a more historical way with the axis conquered (or almost conquered) one option is to keep playing until that is achieved.
In our group we have played a game where the conditions for ending it was, that all axis powers must be reduced to less than half of the usual victory conditions (i.e. Germany 4, Japan 2, Italy 0) - in that way the fixed end date is avoided (and thus its impact on late production etc.), the allies are allowed the feeling of accomplishing something and those '46 units (we played with PatiF units as well) got on the table.
Victory points were of course modified (iirc each allied power got -1 VP for each turn after s/o '45, and then there was a bonus to balance this).
In that way the allies don't have to do it in a fixed time - they will probably keep playing most of the time due to their syuperior position on the map (but can of course lose the game VP-wise if they take to long).
Drawbacks are an even longer game(!) and that the axis get kicked while lying down already.

I would like to see an option to keep playing in MWiF after s/o '45 - don't need any modifications to the AIO etc. just an option to not end the game.

There already is an option to extend the game 3 years (Jul/Aug 1948).

I am thinking about making it possible to have more flexibility for that option, perhaps ending the game early or setting a specific end-date (rather than just the one choice of add 3 years).

[Norman42]

A choice of 1, 2, or 3 year extension would be great if possible.

[SamuraiProgrmmr]

A choice of a 1 or 2 year reduction might be useful as well.  Especially if the AI is very strong or rather weak.
 
Players with more experience on how long it takes to set things up may disagree.  Comments?
 

[Sewerlobster]

ORIGINAL: SamuraiProgrammer
A choice of a 1 or 2 year reduction might be useful as well.  Especially if the AI is very strong or rather weak.
Players with more experience on how long it takes to set things up may disagree.  Comments?

Well technically if the AI is overly weak, you should be able to make the game end earlier. At least if you're the allies, I can see where finishing off the US and Canada could be an exercise in "I won't have enough TRS in time."

[SamuraiProgrmmr]

Well, it could also be 'if the AI is overly strong' and I am overly weak and feel that a moral victory would be to play the Axis and hold out until 44
 
(One can hope for a overly strong AI)
 
 

[npilgaard]

Sounds good - will add a lot of flexibility.

[WarHunter]

As the end game creeps up on the players, a possible option would be to ask the players if they wish to continue or not.
Not sure when the option should implement, but maybe at the 36th turn of the game and onward.

If it is unanimous, the game ends and counts the victory points. This would be an option for an all human game.


Also wondering about how the A-bomb could be used in the victory calculations. Not saying it should, but as i see the use of the A-bomb, it is purely a miltary weapon, with no politcal ramifications, game wise.
(example, forcing a surrender as more are dropped on axis cities).
Granted this becomes an Allied only option, but thought we could gnaw on the meat of it.


My personal feelings of Victory in World in Flames.
Its a test of wills.
The abstract Victory points counted up at the end, have no effect in my mind about who won.
One side or the other will give up. Few games go the historical distance and when they do, they are memorable.

I've been in games that literaly went to aug 45 and the allies won on the last impluse taking Tokyo. I've seen the entire Allied force stuff into France and the germans never got anywhere, sometime in 42 i just declared hitler assassinated and threw in the towel. I've also seen an Axis Automatic Victory situation, and an almost auto victory that was suddenly stopped at Brisbane, the axis player for Japan never returned. The game collected alot of dust waiting for an answer about starting over.

The test of wills is the human factor. It is the sudden death in any game.
Each side is constantly evaluating its position and chances. WiF's is a rollercoaster of emotions with every dieroll and decision. Someone is always sure they are losing and chained to a corpse and then a ramrod is found and victory is certain the next moment.

When the axis players have run out of ideas, and the allies start the road back, it requires patience and takes fortiude from all players to get through the hard years of 43-45. Units density becomes intense and the impluses become longer.

Going to the bunker is probably the most interesting phase of the game. No Axis player should give in when they are being beat down. Take it on the chin and make the allies work at beating you down. You would not believe how much you can learn in the end game, with no chance of victory by the rules.

The learning i allude to is that which is about you and your gaming buddies. Victory is found not in the rules. Its found in the respect for your opponents and your allies. You will share moments in time worth remembering, as good as any memory involving a game and shared time with friends.

In the end, there are no losers. Just damn good times and moments of high strategy. Its the Journey from beginning to end that consitiutes victory. No player is a loser if they did their best til the end.

[brian brian]

sounds like a movie