Matrix Games Forums

I think the major mistake the Germans made was the fact that they looked at the Russian people as "Untermensch". Imagine what would have happened if they would have given the land back to the farmers instead of keeping the Soviet agricultural system in place...

That would have been a major political shock in the USSR in those years and could have swung the opinion of the local population (especially in the Ukraine) to their favour. What would the effect be on the morale of the average Russian soldier (most of which had an agricultural background)?

Yes, the Germans could have won WWII. The Nazis could not. The Nazi plan was to simply exterminate the population of the East.

Here is another great historical question about the weather in the month of May in the 1940s - what if the Allies had rolled good weather the whole turn of M/J 44 and D-Day had not been delayed? What might Patton have accomplished with another month of sunshine? Might he have pulled enough Germans off the Eastern Front that the Russian Operation Bagration reached Warsaw months earlier? Who might have won the race in to central Europe then?

ORIGINAL: Neilster

3. Moscow was really the nerve centre of the Soviet empire. Not only was it a very important industrial area but it was the centre of the rail network. It would have been difficult to move forces north/south on the Eastern Front if it had been encircled or captured. It wouldn't have been easy to build new more easterly railways either in the Autumn rains or nasty Winter either. The psychological blow of its capture is also obvious.

I have to agree with you.

Moscow was the center of the Soviet bureaucracy, and an important rail and industrial center that would have been difficult to replace.



The psychological impact

Having Moscow captured for a second time since 1812 would have probably made the Soviets fight harder. The Soviets lost one million men in the actual defense of Moscow.

Stalin and General Georgy Konstantinovich Zhukov belived that Leningrad had a significant impact on the course of the war. Leningrad was surrounded and the Soviets fought on. Zhukov was brought from the defense of Leningrad to defend Moscow.

Of course there would have been no problem about Lenin's body since it had been removed to Tumen on July 3, 1941.

Do not try to assign European psychological values to the Soviet Union they are not the same.

One of the novel (to me, at any rate) parts of Adam Tooze's book The Wages of Destruction was the discussion of the Hunger Plan, which Nazi officials drafted on the basis of their calculations of available agricultural yields throughout Europe (and, once conquered, the Soviet agricultural belt in Ukraine) given the Allied blockade and the demands of the war.

The salient feature of the Hunger Plan was its estimation that (if memory serves) 20-30 million people in the General Government and occupied USSR would be effectively cut off from Nazi-controlled food distribution, hence left to starve to death.

As brian brian noted, it was essentially a plan for genocide, if through mass starvation rather than more direct action (i.e. the death camp system).

My understanding for Hitler's plans for Moscow in the fall of 1941 were to raze the city and turn it into a reservoir. I wish I could cite (remember) the specific reference for this, but I recall this from a ww2 documentary on the Military Channel four or five years back. It wasn't world at war, or ww2 in color, I know.

The Nazi policies in the East are a reason I don't like the fact that the Partisans rules in World in Flames are an optional rule, though I only rarely here anyone suggest not using it. The goals of genocide actually became a strategic factor in the war, commented on by German Field Marshalls directly. The Nazis had no chance to ever come to political terms with anyone and end the war with negotiations and even actual gains for Germany. Unfortunately it took the German Army far too long to figure this out. Even so, you still have to wonder if had the Army been successful in ending Soviet resistance in the East, the Nazis could have found the manpower to actually carry out the Hunger Plan, another level beyond the Final Solution even, or if the Army would have finally revolted. It is a scary question because the answer might be maybe yes, the Nazis might have been able to do it.

ORIGINAL: Neilster

Just some thoughts...

1. The Spring of 1941 was very wet in Eastern Europe and apparently the ground was unsuitable to begin Barbarossa until well into June. Having said that, these sort of blanket statements need to be examined and later offensives were carried out in fairly boggy/slushy/bad conditions. At that stage of the war, German commanders were used to nice firm ground to kick things off.

2. The Balkan invasions did entail significant wear and tear on vehicles that took time to rectify. What? Can't do everything you want? Bad luck Adolf. Hitler's justification for his Balkan adventure was that he needed to secure his flank. I know it gets complicated with political machinations but if the ground was suitable, I think he still could have launched Barbarossa and left a force to cover the Balkans. It would need little armour and could consist mostly of Hungarians and Romanians. To launch an offensive there, the British would have had to do what they historically did and pull forces out of the Med. Given their lack of attacking skill at that stage of the war, and given a defence with a stiffening of Germans, it would be unlikely to go well.

Cheers, Neilster

Overall I think the weather was as significant or more significant than the side campaign in the Balkans, as far as the start date. The majority of units assigned to Barbarossa's first phase weren't sent to the Balkans at all, I think.

There is another factor about the Balkans cited by Hitler that ties into the game though. What worried him about his flank was the British intervention in Greece. (Yugoslavia crumpled quickly, because it was an artificial country created by the West, much like Iraq.) The British army and their unplanned Greek allies could not threaten his advance into Russia on the ground, particularly through the mountains of the Balkans. But Greece was perfectly situated as a defendable airbase to attack Ploesti. And even in 1941, without Ploesti, the German army would not have been able to invade Russia at all. David Glantz regularly points out that the Germans could not have reached their December 1941 lines without capturing fuel from the Russians. This is another reason I have no interest in playing World in Flames without an oil rule. It was a main strategic factor in the war. (This same concern led the Germans to completely conquer the Crimea and the fortress of Sevastopol, rather than simply sealing it off for much less military cost, I believe, and also led to one of Hitler's many stay-there-too-long decisions.)

Hitler blamed Mussolini for Greece being in the war at all on the Allied side, quite correctly I think. Once the Serb officers acted in Yugoslavia (British coup cell?), in most any scenario the Germans could easily have beaten the fractured Yugoslavs and simply purchased Greek allegiance/neutrality via giving them bits of Macedonia. That idea might have also required Germany to subjugate Bulgaria, another easy task for the Wehrmacht, but that would also strengthen their ties with Rumania even more, and keep Russian interests out of the Balkans, as both Greece and Bulgaria considered themselves the rightful inheritors of Macedonia.

In the game you can explore strange things like Italy forgoing its own quest for Empire and simply building an air force for German use, but even Days of Decision didn't fully explore some of the political possibilities in the Balkans with the way there was little chance Yugoslavia remained whole during the war, and what that would lead the countries all around it to decide.

ORIGINAL: brian brian
But Greece was perfectly situated as a defendable airbase to attack Ploesti. And even in 1941, without Ploesti, the German army would not have been able to invade Russia at all.

There was one game where I played CW and the Axis flubbed their invasion of Greece. It was a nice feeling, bombing Ploesti.

ORIGINAL: Courtenay
This is actually why my group stopped playing WiF: we never had normal weather in Barbarossa. Either summer went on forever, or it was ridiculously short. In the first case, the Axis won, in the second, they lost, and we didn't feel that our skill as players affected the result much. We had one game where the Axis had over twenty fair weather impulses the first year of Barbarossa, and another one where they had at most seven. Neither game was much fun.

This is somewhat disturbing to hear from experienced players. Has there ever been an alternative weather chart developed by players to help smooth out some of the extremes? I understand Steve's mission is to program a faithful adaptation of the boardgame, but boardgamers are free to adopt house rules. So couldn't (shouldn't?) MWiF provide an alternative weather chart option (like the 1D10 vs 2D10 combat charts) or make the weather chart editable so players could customize it? Just a thought.

Yes, people have done that actually. Moving from 1d6 to 1d10 weather helped a lot, and ADG has tweaked that even after 1d10 came out (or will be soon, I forget). But as long as it is variable, you can end up playing a 1% chance game. But without random weather, you could play a nice stable Avalon Hill classic instead.

Barbarossa is a short scenario, which means that the weather can have quite an impact on the outcome of the scenario. But it is also meant to be a training scenario in the boardgame and for MWIF that isn't any different.

Sure, it can be fun to play, but after a time, it becomes a little predictable. A lot of bad weather means: the Soviets usually wins. A lot of good weather means: the Axis usually wins.

Is that true of Global War as well, Centuur? Bad weather: Allies win? Good weather: Axis wins?

Do non-beta-testers have access to the set-die-roll feature? As others have said here, one could house-rule weather and then use set die rolls to enforce the house rule.

I do rather like the idea of a 2D10 or even 3D10 weather table. I think part of what makes WIF so replayable is that no two games are alike: the weather, and even the countermix, changes from one game to the next. Unfortunately, a more detailed weather model is probably out of scope for Steve, who in any case has many other higher priorities.

In global war that effect isn't there. Both sides are effected by the weather and both sides get a crack at attacking or defending. Also US entry plays some part in this, since very good weather in the first year of the war tend to lead to the US entering the war faster, where bad weather delays this. Simply because the Axis haven't got the time to do everything they want, which result in less chits drawn (and chits drawn later, due to the bad weather).

The "set die roll" option is available in the game in solitair games only. It's in the "Interface" menu...

IMO all this talk of extreme weather ruining a game is overdone. The chart is adaptive and lowers the risk of bad weather 2 impulses in a row during the months weather is usually good. I've always played Global War, most games start to finish, and I've never seen a game ruined by bad weather or turn endings. It all seems to average out for each side. Double moves (you move the last impulse of one turn and then win initiative and move the first impulse of the next turn) have a bigger impact IMO and even they don't ruin a game so mush as act as "tide turners".

I can see it in a short scenario like Barbarossa, but the reason you play short scenarios is so you can play lots of them. So what? When this games done, what will we do? ...play another, that's what.

In my current NetPlay playtest of Barbarossa, the weather for German impulse 5 is Snow in the arctic and it's actually a beautiful thing! Infiltration into the swamps near Riga without flipping, and where Russian defenses were strong - now they have to give ground or be surrounded; rushing through hexes in the Pripets and zotting the traffic stoppers hiding there; the Finn Ski troop zipping across Lake Ladoga and threatening to cut off Leningrad.

Bad weather is what you make of it. There are two maxims - in Global games, when the weather is bad somewhere it can easily be good elsewhere and when it rains on you, it rains on the enemy.

I always say that snow isn't that bad in World in Flames. This proofs it...

I'm very glad to read your reassuring comments about the weather and play balance. I think the variable weather is one of the appealing features of the game: it's one of the many features that make the game so replayable. (Another is the variable counter-mix. What a great design decision!)

ORIGINAL: Centuur

I always say that snow isn't that bad in World in Flames. This proofs it...

Remember all those Russian Front games that had a fifth weather? "Frost"

In WiF, Snow is really Frost, Blizzard is really Snow, and real Blizzards were not simulated because the designer lives in Australia, not Canada.

Just look at some data for places that are easy to put into perspective and have some bearing on WiF games:

Picking a random example: continental climate, arctic weather band

Minsk (Europe, Arctic)


Chita (Asia, Arctic)


Chicago (America, Arctic)



Why this example: I recently joined a board gaming round at my local hobby store. 10+ people, all experienced with cosims, starting to play WiF. We started off with playing 2 parallel games of Barbarossa, and as it happens one game had two (2) the other game hat one (1) snow impulse in M/J. This funneled into a longer discussion about the weather model and if the game is good at all


All are in the Arctic weather zone in WiF. Look at the M/J columns and ask yourself if 10% snow is a good model assumption. I guess an approach to verfy for now can be: mentally form a rectangular shape around "May"-"Jun" (x-axis) and 5-15% chances (y-axis) and judge if the blue color part is about 10% of the area.
To me (any my judgements are not in high regard here, I know that..) 10% seems to be fair mean model for all these places. So there is anecdotical evidence that the model is not absurdly prone to produce outliers. I can imagine that data like this has been used generate the weather model. Data has no obligation to be congruent with your perception.. try drawing a weather curve like this for your local place and then look it up
As it happens this data is available to people in Australia and Canada.. so Paul's cheap try inslut his fellow-Commonwealth members from half-a-world-away seems a bit far fetched.

I ran a Monte Carlo of one million games and when you take into account the modifier for the next impulse's weather, including possible carry-over from March/April, the overall chance for snow in May/June is 8.3%.

ORIGINAL: Dabrion
All are in the Arctic weather zone in WiF. Look at the M/J columns and ask yourself if 10% snow is a good model assumption.

Yeah, but real snow with real accumulation and real movement/combat effects in J/F is a whole lot different than a rare dusting of snow with little accumulation or effect in M/J. Seeing snow in Minsk in May is possible according to historical data, sure, but a snow storm during the later impulses in M/J (ie, June) is pretty absurd. Weather variability within norms is fine, but some of the extremes that cause players to ask WTF? could be reconsidered.

ORIGINAL: Grotius
Unfortunately, a more detailed weather model is probably out of scope for Steve, who in any case has many other higher priorities.

An editable weather chart file that players could customize would be nice. For those who like to fiddle with such things. [;)]

Basically, what Paul said. People will type up their stories of that one game, with the really extreme weather, that one year. But usually the weather in a game goes relatively unremarked, because it averages out over a whole game, or even within a year. There is good weather, and bad weather. Just like real life. The feedback mechanisms on the chart do work.

Sometimes, I kind of enjoy the way the players complain about what the game system "did" to them; it's what the game is all about. You have to deal with factors beyond your control. Or, you could play Chess.


I think the units are too mobile in Snow, but then I think they are too mobile in general. In real life, you can't just shuffle corps around, here, there and everywhere. They have axes of advance and when the General changes his mind about which ones should go where, problems follow.

Anyway, I liked the proposed optional from the last Annual about the first hex in snow costing +1 MP, except for Winterized units. But, as noted above, gamers hate limits on what they can tell the pieces to do, because simpler games don't have those limits. So I doubt that Optional ever gained much traction.