Unfair and Fair

[Centuur]

Thing is, that if you play the game without any optional rules in it, it is a pro Axis game IMHO. So most optional rules somehow favor the Allies.

And to be fair: who wants to play the game without oil, motorized movement points, and partisans? All things which makes the game more difficult for the Axis but you don't want to play without. Some also put in Limited overseas supply too as a rule which they believe they can't play without.

But since almost everyone wants to play which these optionals, the game seems to be balanced at that point somehow...

[rkr1958]

There's a related and interesting thread over at BGG, WiF forum: https://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/19 ... onal-rules

In this thread there's mention of 5 "mandatory" optional rules at WiFCon. Basically, these 5 optional rules must be played if ANY player wanted to play with them. The remaining optional rules were played only if ALL players wanted to play with them.

The five "mandatory" optional rules were:

1. Partisans.
2. O-Chits.
3. Compulsory Japanese USSR Peace.
4. Emergency HQ Support.
5. Motorized Movement Costs.

I find it interesting that oil or saving resources aren't included. For me, these two optional rules would be at the top of the must have list.

[TeaLeaf]

Nice thread you linked to, Ronnie.
Well, so many different versions and players, so many different preferences, it seems [:D].

Darn! I didn't realize CE was so different from FE [X(]. Apart from the goodies, ofc...
But I'm not going to buy CE. Sorry ADG. I've bought WiF 3 times over now and I bought the FE because I thought it's FINAL. LoL, any1? Go ahead and rub it in [;)].

Oh, and I like what Bruce Jurin said: stick to 1d10 if you have trouble stopping Barbarossa.
On the other hand though, what fun is it knowing you can stop Barbarossa 1d10 while knowing all your friends play 2d10. Kind of a ruined party if you ask me. Better learn to adopt 2d10 then >.<

A 'final' note: the only 'unfair' thing in WiF, I think, is that it is pro-axis indeed, compared to historical war. Allied production capacity is lower, Axis (Italy!) production capacity is higher, German supply nightmares in Russia are non-existent, French Army is smaller, etc. etc.
But: to me all that is OK, since the simulation factor in this game is still high enough. When it comes to WWII-games, I like a higher simulation factor. For example, to me, 'Axis and Allies' is a 100% game 0% simulation, WiF is more like 50% simulation 50% game.

[rkr1958]

ORIGINAL: TeaLeaf
Allied production capacity is lower,

I thought a bit about this and allied production being lower, especially the US, might actual result in more realistic production. During the war the US completed 24 Essex class carriers and 4 Iowa class battleships. In my current game I've built only 5 Essex class carriers and 3 Iowa class battleships and it's May/June 1945. In (M)WiF, the allied player knows that their "simulated" universe will end at midnight, August 31, 1945 (unless one is playing with extended game length). As such, they stop all ship builds from the keel up sometime in early to mid 1943. That would be a lot of extra BP's going to men, planes and tanks from 1943 on if the allies got their historical production. So, I feel reducing allied production below the historical is a counter to the fact that the allies tend to stop building new ships in 1943.

[jboldt007]

My 2 cents as a newbie - ultimately the core of a competitive game is the bid. The experienced player would know what to bid depending on what is in play. Having said that... so far ... to me.... carpet bombing is too powerful (or not limited enough it’s is usage), whereas ground strike should, at high odds, should be able to destroy disorganized or out of supply air units. The allies used ground strikes to destroy the German jets. But anyway, it all works - what be your bid?

[brian brian]

Good job jboldt007, it took a new player to recall the key balancing mechanism: Bids. So many players skip that as they just want to get a game going with the side/MP they want to play - more important than worrying about losing the desired MP to the bidding process.

re: Italian WiF production - look through the Light Cruiser counters for some perspective on what historical Italy did with it’s steel plate production. Also, consider how many INF/GARR/MIL Italy fielded and lost in North Africa and Russia, and how much they contributed to garrisoning Yugoslavia.

Just as the Allies can essentially replace Essex CVs with cheaper land-based twin-engine FTR3, Italy can instead invest it all in the Jr. Luftwaffia and defend the Med and pummel the Russian front lines with far more bombers than Il Duce ever built. Is that fair? The players have both knowledge of the fixed time period and info on which choices are rewarded in the combat resolution systems of the rules.

[Centuur]

ORIGINAL: brian brian

Good job jboldt007, it took a new player to recall the key balancing mechanism: Bids. So many players skip that as they just want to get a game going with the side/MP they want to play - more important than worrying about losing the desired MP to the bidding process.

re: Italian WiF production - look through the Light Cruiser counters for some perspective on what historical Italy did with it’s steel plate production. Also, consider how many INF/GARR/MIL Italy fielded and lost in North Africa and Russia, and how much they contributed to garrisoning Yugoslavia.

Just as the Allies can essentially replace Essex CVs with cheaper land-based twin-engine FTR3, Italy can instead invest it all in the Jr. Luftwaffia and defend the Med and pummel the Russian front lines with far more bombers than Il Duce ever built. Is that fair? The players have both knowledge of the fixed time period and info on which choices are rewarded in the combat resolution systems of the rules.

The Italians contributed a lot to garrisons in occupied countries. Apart from Yugoslavia, they were also present with a large force in Greece and in a lesser extent in occupied France and the Low countries too.
I don't think the Italian production capability is to high. It's balanced perfectly by not having enough resources to fill the all the Euroaxis factories in the early days of the war...

And of course jboldt007 is right. It's the bidding which is the big balancer of the game. We do indeed tend to forget about this one, and it's a pity that that part isn't coded in MWIF at the moment.

[pzgndr]

ORIGINAL: Centuur
It's the bidding which is the big balancer of the game. We do indeed tend to forget about this one, and it's a pity that that part isn't coded in MWIF at the moment.

A bid is inherently quantitative, which presumes that a player can more or less assess the net worth or value of the options selected for play balance. What is fair? Which then leads to, what is a reasonable bid?

I'm curious why the base game without any options may be so biased as pro-Axis, which then requires a strong pro-Allied handicap bias to compensate. Regardless, it might be nice to better quantify the various options and somehow code values and bids into the game. I'm somewhat surprised WiF players haven't scrutinized all this before, or if they have what conclusions they reached. Very interesting!

[TeaLeaf]

I'm not sure why Vanilla-WiF would be pro-Axis, since I've heard differently.
Well, not exactly, since I heard WiF with all/most options 'on' is too much in favor of the Axis, but that implies that Vanilla-WiF would be more balanced... I guess that is also because people have difficulties recognising their favorite options as biased.

But Yes, the bidding is THE 'balancing factor' of WiF that I like: with that, you can win the game even if you would have lost if playing it out till the end.

That is what I like most to see in WWII-games: perfectly imbalanced, but both sides still can win 'because they did better than history'.