World in Flames is the computer version of Australian Design Group classic board game. World In Flames is a highly detailed game covering the both Europe and Pacific Theaters of Operations during World War II. If you want grand strategy this game is for you.
Lesson:
1) Always guard you naval bases, never let any one step on you navy, especially if the can surprise you or disrupt the ships first. Rough rule of thumb, place a land unit at the navy bases.
Remember:
1) Always check the next turns reinforcements when calculating what the enemy can do in the near future.
2) Don’t take for granted that you will get an average result when calculating the outcome of a battle. You should also be able to handle the worst result.
Thanks...
Your point 2 is in keeping with some other advices I have read in the campaign booklet. It seems that expert players try to keep their gambling at a a minimun...which I find a realistic approach.
One question about the Diego Suarez affair. Did the other players see what was going to happen? Had everybody a ringing bell inside their heads when the fleet was parked in an undefended base?
A l’hora que el sol se pon, bevent al raig de la font, he assaborit els secrets de la terra misteriosa.
Part de dins de la canal he vist l’aigua virginal venir del fosc naixement a regalar-me la boca.
ARM is prime on the defense. Basically an odds level shift for each one in the hex in clear terrain on either table. And other great bonuses in making it that much tougher for the attacker to pick the combat table and possibly deny their blitz bonuses.
I think my favorite build on the first turn is a MECH for the French and an ARM for the Russians. It is hard for the French to build up their INF gearing if they do it, but not impossible. In fact having them start at 1 infantry class unit on the 2nd turn makes it that much easier for them to build an extra anti-tank asset of some sort. Assuming Fall Gelb doesn't start until the Spring.
For the Russians, a 1940 Barbarossa is so rare I don't worry about the risk. And if it were to come to pass, the only unit the Russians have that can stop a panzer spearhead is an ARM unit. Of course, the Russians have to keep their tanks away from the Stukas, but whenever the Panzers outrun the Luftwaffe, they can't beat a Russian ARM unit all that easily.
On the 2nd turn for the Russians, I build ... another ARM unit. And then on the 3rd turn, a 3rd one. J/F 41? You guessed it, their 4th one. To beat tanks you need tanks. Best not wait for your western "allies" to disintegrate early and place those orders for the T-34s right away.
ARM is prime on the defense. Basically an odds level shift for each one in the hex in clear terrain on either table. And other great bonuses in making it that much tougher for the attacker to pick the combat table and possibly deny their blitz bonuses.
I think my favorite build on the first turn is a MECH for the French and an ARM for the Russians. It is hard for the French to build up their INF gearing if they do it, but not impossible. In fact having them start at 1 infantry class unit on the 2nd turn makes it that much easier for them to build an extra anti-tank asset of some sort. Assuming Fall Gelb doesn't start until the Spring.
For the Russians, a 1940 Barbarossa is so rare I don't worry about the risk. And if it were to come to pass, the only unit the Russians have that can stop a panzer spearhead is an ARM unit. Of course, the Russians have to keep their tanks away from the Stukas, but whenever the Panzers outrun the Luftwaffe, they can't beat a Russian ARM unit all that easily.
On the 2nd turn for the Russians, I build ... another ARM unit. And then on the 3rd turn, a 3rd one. J/F 41? You guessed it, their 4th one. To beat tanks you need tanks. Best not wait for your western "allies" to disintegrate early and place those orders for the T-34s right away.
Since the USSR has 8 build points per turn, you won't be building any infantry then. Maybe 3 garrison?
Since the USSR only has 2 Inf on the map (plus the 3 Siberians), and the reserve units all arrive disorganized, what units would take the losses if the Germans do decide to DOW in early 1940? Or are you intentionally trying to get them to do just that?
The screenshot is from Sept/Oct 1939 - as the USSR is setting up its units.
yeah, ARM + GARR, 3 turns straight, then the MECH + 2 cheap Infantry class units. then start climbing the mountain of infantry gearing. also, see my next post.
a 1940 Barbarossa will be a low density affair for each side. in theory, I've never seen one and don't expect to. the Russians get a nice amount of Reserves of course, and against a 1940 attack the instant MIL build would be an OK choice. (I don't build a mass pile of them in M/J 41, just some each turn).
In M/J 40, a Russian ARM, MECH, and re-org'd RES MECH would play like 3 strong safeties, preventing the thinner-than-41 German spearheads from taking a hex beyond the range of the Luftwaffe, greatly slowing the speed of the German advance.
Not stopping the advance, just keeping them from taking hexes before their Infantry and Stukas can be brought forward. Hexes such as the critical rail junctions (including clear terrain INF can't hold) to get the factories to Siberia, which is the #1 key in Barbarossa, worth trading units for. An ARM would join the effort in J/A and S/O 40, along with a MECH that turn. That would give me more security than several extra pre-war Russian Infantry armies that the powerful German units will just pulverize anyway whenever they make contact. I think. And the Germans can't operate on as many axes of advance in 1940 as in 1941. If the Germans concentrate forces on one axis, the Russians mass their armor against it and all the factories escape from the ignored axis. If the Germans spread out, the Russian tanks spread out as they won't need to be as concentrated to prevent panzers from advancing freely without infantry.
Really I have the same philosophy for a 1941 Barbarossa. By then the Russians would have 3 ARM & 4 MECH in their defensive secondary, though now operating in stacked pairs. These stacks also give the Russians flexibility to pick off single exposed forward German units, not to make any kind of devastating counterattack or momentum shift; the Germans have too deep of a bench for that to succeed in 1941. Rather, these fast units can swoop on to any easy kill in the front lines (always and only if and iwhen the Luftwaffe is used up / out of range) to get Guards Banner Army points. Those units can stop German spearheads dead in their tank tracks and require a German Army+ (3 stacks) to overcome them, if they choose to stand and fight, which I would not suggest. GBA units on the map in 1940 would be a glorious thing, but the weak pre-war Russian rifle units won't be able to generate one against the powerful pre-war Wehrmacht units. The black-print Russian tank units of either type aren't all that strong either of course, but their built-in die roll modifiers give them increased combat power over just their combat factors.
I thought I posted this yesterday, but my internet service must have burped when I sent it.
The #1 mistake I see and have seen new players Allied to me make, is getting the Russians involved in a land war in Asia before Barbarossa. The #2 mistake is for the western Allies to build for the late game and ignore aid to Russia. A combination of the 2 is not uncommon, and even worse.
World in Flames is so fun because it allows the Axis to forgo operations in the Mediterranean and hurl everything at the Russians. Think what Rommel could have accomplished commanding a Panzer Group in Army Group Center, with several hundred more combat aircraft supporting him. The real Russians barely survived even with the British and Americans sending significant quantities of war materiel all the way to the spring of 1945. WiF also lets the players explore alternative Western decision making of not helping a Major Power not actually friendly to them.
I would think a possible downside to building Russian tanks early would be Pact breaking calculations in 1940. On the minus, several infantry and pilots might well prevent the Germans from breaking the Pact in 1940. On the plus side, Russian tanks can escape from the border zone much better than infantry, and are as economical as INF in Pact breaking math at 3 BP / garrison point, but arrive much more slowly.
But I've never looked too closely at those numbers in 1940. The Germans would have to have significant forces on the French border in 1940 of course, so Pact breaking isn't so simple I think.
I would think a possible downside to building Russian tanks early would be Pact breaking calculations in 1940. On the minus, several infantry and pilots might well prevent the Germans from breaking the Pact in 1940. On the plus side, Russian tanks can escape from the border zone much better than infantry, and are as economical as INF in Pact breaking math at 3 BP / garrison point, but arrive much more slowly.
But I've never looked too closely at those numbers in 1940. The Germans would have to have significant forces on the French border in 1940 of course, so Pact breaking isn't so simple I think.
German units on the French border have a very short line (5 hexes) to hold behind a river: 4 hexes behind the river, 3 cities, and 4 forest hexes. There are also a couple of German forts to be placed if I remember correctly. It's not the Maginot line, but the French attack combat factors are pretty weak. They also only have 4 hexes from which to attack, with no more than 2 attack hexes on any German hex. I usually defend with the reserves and a pile of garrison units., 6-8 units in all.
oh and I like to re-org the Russian reserves with HQ units and re-org the HQ with their offensive chit if they become threatened by the German advance. In 1940 the Russians could regroup 7 reserves this way and most likely wouldn't have to use a chit to save the HQs. Those blue pieces had better be darn busy though.
To return to this threads original purpose (mea culpa for the digression[8|]):
The French attacking the Germans across the Rhine is another common beginner's mistake. Disorganizing the French units is almost guaranteed, the amount of damage to the Germans is rarely anything significant, advancing after combat is even most foolish since it increases the German production multiple and all French units in the line become vulnerable to counter-attacks.
but what if the French get enough across the Rhine to align Yugoslavia? Say against a noob German player thinking, hey, I'll sucker the French into giving me a BP boost...
and a final Barb 40 thought, a fascinating theoretical campaign for me. I'll have to try it sometime. The French/German border is short of course. But the German/Belgian border adds several hexes to it, and I think oddly enough the attacking French would be on interior lines, a rare thing. The French could afford to attack a bit recklessly as the Germans couldn't easily shift back to the west, and their army does improve steadily. If the French were scared to attack, that would mean the Germans have less advancing into Russia. And the Tommies should be busy hurling divisions at the Danish Coast until successful on some sort of lucky invasion / double turn gambit when Gort + Corps unit lands. Or they could invade Norway in 1940 to achieve the same end - a naval base on the Baltic. Or other potential adventures. A fun game for sure, for both sides.
A common generic mistake is to literally 'lose' units. A player puts a nice unit somewhere and then leaves it there for a year or more, doing relatively nothing. Have seen it time and again, might not be any different on the computer version. The burning world is pretty big.
but what if the French get enough across the Rhine to align Yugoslavia? Say against a noob German player thinking, hey, I'll sucker the French into giving me a BP boost...
and a final Barb 40 thought, a fascinating theoretical campaign for me. I'll have to try it sometime. The French/German border is short of course. But the German/Belgian border adds several hexes to it, and I think oddly enough the attacking French would be on interior lines, a rare thing. The French could afford to attack a bit recklessly as the Germans couldn't easily shift back to the west, and their army does improve steadily. If the French were scared to attack, that would mean the Germans have less advancing into Russia. And the Tommies should be busy hurling divisions at the Danish Coast until successful on some sort of lucky invasion / double turn gambit when Gort + Corps unit lands. Or they could invade Norway in 1940 to achieve the same end - a naval base on the Baltic. Or other potential adventures. A fun game for sure, for both sides.
A common generic mistake is to literally 'lose' units. A player puts a nice unit somewhere and then leaves it there for a year or more, doing relatively nothing. Have seen it time and again, might not be any different on the computer version. The burning world is pretty big.
For a couple dozen phases in the game, the Selectable Units form appears, which identifies all the units that can move during the phase. Its unlikely that you'll 'lose' an air unit in MWIF since that form appears for all the air mission phases as well as the Naval Air and Air Rebase phases.
The form for the Production Planning phases has a check box for "return all unused convoys to port" so those should not get 'lost' either. Naval units at sea have to either stay-at-sea or return-to-base every turn.
However, land units in general and naval units in port are still at risk of collecting cobwebs. As Neilster said, you can use the MWIF commands to cycle through all the units eligible to move in a phase (e.g., land movement & naval movement) to make sure you haven't forgotten someone.
I am becoming rather serious at learning the game. I have just bought a penbook (paper, old style)...and I have commenced to take notes.
So...please..could you elaborate at this?[8|] One corps as garrison? A division would do the trick?
How it depends on other factors? For instance, one unit at start and afterwards to reinforce it when Germany arrives to the Pyrinees, just in case our beloved Franco let Hitler in?
Is it possible to lose Gibraltar already in turn 1 to a Paradroop Assault? Do I need to prevent that, or it is not possible (-too much distance, transport unavailable??)
Have you looked through the Players' Notes in the Scenario Booklet? Lots of good advice for new players:
Cruss you are coming aboard welcome, good to see you with a positive comment [&o] when the game is released I may need to pick your brain, a brain that probably holds the key to many victorious situations that I will be needing in the years to come.
Interesting. My usual first turn build with the Soviets is the Para; whether it's a 40 barb, or a 41 barb, or threatening the Finns, I find that the flexibility of the Para combined with those super long ranged Soviet 4 engine guys makes him the single best build you can make.
The threat of having him jump somewhere is often stronger than any arm or mech.
Also, don't forget, not everyone plays 2D10 all the time; if you're using 1D10, arms and mechs suddenly become a lot less valuable.
EDIT: As to the OP, I think the biggest mistake is just forgetting to move guys. I know when I first started playing, I would constantly forget a seazone to guard properly when sorting out my British naval defenses, and then BAM, the Scharnhorst and Gnisenau and the pocket battleships would show up there, like magic.
"When beset by danger,
When in deadly doubt,
Run in little circles,
Wave your arms and shout."
Interesting. My usual first turn build with the Soviets is the Para; whether it's a 40 barb, or a 41 barb, or threatening the Finns, I find that the flexibility of the Para combined with those super long ranged Soviet 4 engine guys makes him the single best build you can make.
The threat of having him jump somewhere is often stronger than any arm or mech.
That's a very interesting point of view. I like it...
Depends on who you have in front. In one EWC, intermediate (lest's say beginners, as much as someone can be a beginner at the EWC) it took the german player more than a year to take Paris, by then (guessing what was going to happen) the French built mechs and Arm,and they were pretty useful...
Since MECHs (5 BPs, 3 turns) are not armor, I wasn't ruling out building them. It's those 6 BPs and 4 turns for armor, planning on a counter-offensive in 1940 that I believe is delusional.
The US should be starting its long term naval builds, China & the USSR building infantry of all types, France shoring up its defensive land units, and the Commonwealth building tons of other stuff that is desperately needed. Only the US should be thinking offensively, and that is for an offense which won't start until 1941 at the earliest.
Not making a counter-offensive, just defensive gives the weaker hexes a +2 or +4 ... bonus. Plus, if the enemy happens to fail one attack and have some stacks flipped, there may be oportunities to make the GE player pay for France, of course not opportunities for French survival.
I must say the french player did this once he had a serious line of double INFs, with some others covering possible blitzs, and he had already "ordered" the anti-tanks he didn't have (he got the anti-airs), plus the ground support. Then he started building Arm and the next turn Mech. We were using FiF so if the situation had changed dramaticall y he could have stopped paying for them, which is not as bad. Plus, the BR was giving pretty many resources, so he had a better production than usual.
Of course, he hoped but didn't really expect to be able to get them but he did (cause the GE player took about one year to attack the forward defense of France in Belgium, because he lacked enough stukas and fighters, and because the BR sent two stacks) and they made an excellent work. I agree that normally it wouldn't make sense, when he took Paris like 12 - 16 months after the usual date.
but what if the French get enough across the Rhine to align Yugoslavia? Say against a noob German player thinking, hey, I'll sucker the French into giving me a BP boost...
and a final Barb 40 thought, a fascinating theoretical campaign for me. I'll have to try it sometime. The French/German border is short of course. But the German/Belgian border adds several hexes to it, and I think oddly enough the attacking French would be on interior lines, a rare thing. The French could afford to attack a bit recklessly as the Germans couldn't easily shift back to the west, and their army does improve steadily. If the French were scared to attack, that would mean the Germans have less advancing into Russia. And the Tommies should be busy hurling divisions at the Danish Coast until successful on some sort of lucky invasion / double turn gambit when Gort + Corps unit lands. Or they could invade Norway in 1940 to achieve the same end - a naval base on the Baltic. Or other potential adventures. A fun game for sure, for both sides.
A common generic mistake is to literally 'lose' units. A player puts a nice unit somewhere and then leaves it there for a year or more, doing relatively nothing. Have seen it time and again, might not be any different on the computer version. The burning world is pretty big.
This is due to the extremely low capacity of land and sea movement in the combined action, and the few air actions for naval and land actions. You have to select and sometimes you cannot move a scheduled unit for turns, when you were supposed to move it next impulse.
Fortunately this is improved in the new drafts by the possibility of moving individual units paying a (still expensive) cost in O points.
