Matrix Games Forums

Iv'e been snooping around this site for a while eagerly awaiting Steve's hard work to become a reality. I am also an old time player of WIF, +10 years ago I guess.

I used to have it suspended from the ceiling on a balsa wood, it could be lowered down on pulleys when it was time to play and hoisted up again after so it would'nt get disturbed. It worked pretty well. Many a beer was put away into the wee hours.

This thread is intended to bring back the memories of the best laid plans that worked, or didn't work. So please share.

For example, I bushwalked my British openent trying to save Gibralter, and in the process he lost many of his naval units including the queen.

It was delightful stacking all my Navs and Tactical Bombers (with Nav points) close to the sea poised to strike Gibralter but really poised for a Naval action if he chose to save the rock. He did, and down he went. Poor boy. Don't think he has quite recovered

ORIGINAL: WIF_Killzone

Iv'e been snooping around this site for a while eagerly awaiting Steve's hard work to become a reality. I am also an old time player of WIF, +10 years ago I guess.

I used to have it suspended from the ceiling on a balsa wood, it could be lowered down on pulleys when it was time to play and hoisted up again after so it would'nt get disturbed. It worked pretty well. Many a beer was put away into the wee hours.

This thread is intended to bring back the memories of the best laid plans that worked, or didn't work. So please share.

For example, I bushwalked my British openent trying to save Gibralter, and in the process he lost many of his naval units including the queen.

It was delightful stacking all my Navs and Tactical Bombers (with Nav points) close to the sea poised to strike Gibralter but really poised for a Naval action if he chose to save the rock. He did, and down he went. Poor boy. Don't think he has quite recovered

Welcome to the forum.[:)]

I envy those of you who've been able to play this game in its original format with one person per power. Would have been a lot of fun.

ORIGINAL: OzHawkeye

I envy those of you who've been able to play this game in its original format with one person per power. Would have been a lot of fun.

A different player per power on the computer should be better. Not so much cooperation and a bit more independent action should come out of that arrangement.

But this game is wild when all the gamers come together to do battle. It's one of the best gaming experiences I've ever had and one of the top 5 wargames I've ever played.

Good Hunting.

MR

My hope is that netplay will facilitate larger numbers of human players per game. I don't know what the optimal number of human players would be. 4 is good(half the time we could barely manage to find that many) but maybe 5 or 6 would be better. Is there a consensus on this?
6 would seem to be best
Commonwealth/USA/USSR&France
Germany/ Italy/Japan ....yeah. That would be really good.

5 seems best to me. Maybe with the better ease-of-play on the 'net, more people would be willing to play Italy solo, making an even better game.

I'd probably prefer to play Italy solo as it has a unique challenge.

Sure, I love to play Italy. But whether you survive to the end of the game is largely the result of decisions by the other players, so if you really want to play a game to win in the end, that takes away a lot of the lustre of playing Italy all by itself.

In my first game of WiF, my Best Laid Plan was for Italy to take Suez and then land in South Africa. I never made it past keeping my oh-so-expensive creation of the Ariete armored corps in supply to cross the wire on towards Suez, as once war got going each of my planes was shot down the first time they flew....then replacing all those planes kept me from ever adding more transports, which was good because by then the good guys from the West were coming to visit me in large quantities.

ORIGINAL: macgregor

My hope is that netplay will facilitate larger numbers of human players per game. I don't know what the optimal number of human players would be. 4 is good(half the time we could barely manage to find that many) but maybe 5 or 6 would be better. Is there a consensus on this?
6 would seem to be best
Commonwealth/USA/USSR&France
Germany/ Italy/Japan ....yeah. That would be really good.

5 is the ultimate best.

CW
USA / Nationalist China
USSR / Communist China / France (initialy)
Germany
Japan / Italy

In my first game of WiF, my Best Laid Plan was for Italy to take Suez and then land in South Africa.

 
In the game im playing now my Italy has taken Malta and Suez and allied with Iraq . My allied mate seems more and more willing to start all over again.[:D]

ORIGINAL: bredsjomagnus
In the game im playing now my Italy has taken Malta and Suez and allied with Iraq . My allied mate seems more and more willing to start all over again.[:D]

It would be too bad, this is such a rare occurence for Italy to achive that.

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: macgregor

My hope is that netplay will facilitate larger numbers of human players per game. I don't know what the optimal number of human players would be. 4 is good(half the time we could barely manage to find that many) but maybe 5 or 6 would be better. Is there a consensus on this?
6 would seem to be best
Commonwealth/USA/USSR&France
Germany/ Italy/Japan ....yeah. That would be really good.

5 is the ultimate best.

CW
USA / Nationalist China
USSR / Communist China / France (initialy)
Germany
Japan / Italy

I think playing Italy alone will be popalar with me when I am playing NetPlay. If I get knocked out of the war I no longer have to sit the game out. I can simply search for a new game and there benefit from the experience I gained from the latest trashing.

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: bredsjomagnus
In the game im playing now my Italy has taken Malta and Suez and allied with Iraq . My allied mate seems more and more willing to start all over again.[:D]

It would be too bad, this is such a rare occurence for Italy to achive that.

It wouldn't be too bad for the Axis. The whole point of the exercise is to win the war. If the Allies can't win at some point then the war is over.

In this case though, I don't see enough to indicate that the Allies are finished. If the rest of the Axis is doing well the war may well be over.

While the Allies wouldn't accept a negotiated peace with the Axis the same is not true in reverse. The Axis would have accepted negotiated independent peace treaties with the Allied nations. Maybe there should be a sudden death peace treaty option for the Allied nations in MWiF2 if that comes about. Where a nation beaten badly enough will sue for peace and have the computer take you out of the game.

In our games we don't beat a dead horse. If the war is over in 1943 it's over and we end the game. We don't capture every island and take every small province..........[:-]

Good Hunting.

MR

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian
It wouldn't be too bad for the Axis. The whole point of the exercise is to win the war. If the Allies can't win at some point then the war is over.

In this case though, I don't see enough to indicate that the Allies are finished. If the rest of the Axis is doing well the war may well be over.

While the Allies wouldn't accept a negotiated peace with the Axis the same is not true in reverse. The Axis would have accepted negotiated independent peace treaties with the Allied nations. Maybe there should be a sudden death peace treaty option for the Allied nations in MWiF2 if that comes about. Where a nation beaten badly enough will sue for peace and have the computer take you out of the game.

In our games we don't beat a dead horse. If the war is over in 1943 it's over and we end the game. We don't capture every island and take every small province..........[:-]

Well, generaly I don't like games that don't go to J/A 45, because it encourages Axis doomed strategies.

But I can accept that a game is stopped before its due end in some cases.

The rule of thumb is that the only side that can quit a game earlier is the Allied side. The Axis have the first chance for enjoyment in that game, and then the Allies have their. It is not fair if the Axis had its chance, spoiled it in any way, and then simply quit. The Axis side own the Allied side their fair share of enjoyment too, so they can't call it a day unilateraly.

So if the Axis side have played the fool and are now having a hard time even as early as 1941 / 1942, then I say that they must go on, the Allied side decide. Now, if the Allied side are not enjoying the experience either for any reason that belongs to them, then they can end the game, but it is their call.

If the Axis side was so successful that the allied side thinks that there can't be no more enjoyment for them for the rest of that game, they can end the game too.

I agree if the Axis is allowed to romp around unti they discover they're going to lose at the end (which is the majority of the time), they should be good sports and allow the allies to finish the game and find out whan either conquest or end of game occurs. Quitting after finding out your grand strategy doesn't pan out denies the allies their fun. Besides you dug your grave, time to lay in it. [X(][:D]

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99

I agree if the Axis is allowed to romp around unti they discover they're going to lose at the end (which is the majority of the time), they should be good sports and allow the allies to finish the game and find out whan either conquest or end of game occurs. Quitting after finding out your grand strategy doesn't pan out denies the allies their fun. Besides you dug your grave, time to lay in it. [X(][:D]

As for Axis, if their plans fall short, they can revert to a good defensive strategy and be able to win nevertheless.

ORIGINAL: Orm

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: macgregor

My hope is that netplay will facilitate larger numbers of human players per game. I don't know what the optimal number of human players would be. 4 is good(half the time we could barely manage to find that many) but maybe 5 or 6 would be better. Is there a consensus on this?
6 would seem to be best
Commonwealth/USA/USSR&France
Germany/ Italy/Japan ....yeah. That would be really good.

5 is the ultimate best.

CW
USA / Nationalist China
USSR / Communist China / France (initialy)
Germany
Japan / Italy

I think playing Italy alone will be popalar with me when I am playing NetPlay. If I get knocked out of the war I no longer have to sit the game out. I can simply search for a new game and there benefit from the experience I gained from the latest trashing.

My thoughts exactly. Perhaps after I get more acclimated I'll want something more powerful. I see no reason why a player should have to control more than Japan. I mean, that's all the way on the other side of the world.

In any WWII European strategic game that is new to me, I always like to play Italy alone, because I feel that, as a newbie, if I mess things up I won't spoil the game for the other players (much!).  Italy-alone is a great way to introduce WiF to a new player in a way that is not too daunting.  And if he does mess up ... well, he's just playing Mussolini to perfection!

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian
It wouldn't be too bad for the Axis. The whole point of the exercise is to win the war. If the Allies can't win at some point then the war is over.

In this case though, I don't see enough to indicate that the Allies are finished. If the rest of the Axis is doing well the war may well be over.

While the Allies wouldn't accept a negotiated peace with the Axis the same is not true in reverse. The Axis would have accepted negotiated independent peace treaties with the Allied nations. Maybe there should be a sudden death peace treaty option for the Allied nations in MWiF2 if that comes about. Where a nation beaten badly enough will sue for peace and have the computer take you out of the game.

In our games we don't beat a dead horse. If the war is over in 1943 it's over and we end the game. We don't capture every island and take every small province..........[:-]

Well, generaly I don't like games that don't go to J/A 45, because it encourages Axis doomed strategies.

But I can accept that a game is stopped before its due end in some cases.

The rule of thumb is that the only side that can quit a game earlier is the Allied side. The Axis have the first chance for enjoyment in that game, and then the Allies have their. It is not fair if the Axis had its chance, spoiled it in any way, and then simply quit. The Axis side own the Allied side their fair share of enjoyment too, so they can't call it a day unilateraly.

So if the Axis side have played the fool and are now having a hard time even as early as 1941 / 1942, then I say that they must go on, the Allied side decide. Now, if the Allied side are not enjoying the experience either for any reason that belongs to them, then they can end the game, but it is their call.

If the Axis side was so successful that the allied side thinks that there can't be no more enjoyment for them for the rest of that game, they can end the game too.

You can play the game however you like. For us, when the war is over it's over. If that's in June 43 then we quit and start again. I can see no reason to fight out a game with a clear end result. I would rather start again and give both sides the chance at winning that play for 3 or 4 more weeks on a game which we could tell the end result of.

As an Allied player I get plenty of satisfaction by beating the Axis as quick as I can. We put the names of the gamers in a container and draw them out. That way you never know which country you are going to play next. We played a lot of games. Very few of them make it until 1945 before one side or the other is clearly winning.

By taking Russia and India in mid 1943(We did this as the Axis in one game. A game in which I was the Japanese/Italians.) would you as the Allied player want to keep on playing? As the Axis player why would you keep on playing? You want to invade Pago Pago too? Not us. When the war is over it's over. Stop the game and start another one where everybody has a chance to win.

Each to his own enjoyment.

Good Hunting.

MR