The germans

[tigercub]

I use to play the old World in Flames with out any of the extras way back back when with a friend. on talking to him he did then and still thinks the germans are to strong and the game is not balanced! i am looking for people who disagree/or not with this anyone?

[YohanTM2]

We generally played WiF with three strong players. One of which won the Canadian WiF championship one year, so a good group.

We played one Axis and 2 Aliied players. The results varied quite often and except for the occassional new strategy that misfired completely we found the games quite balanced. Of course, the optional rules selection can impact this as well.

One of the themes that keeps being discussed is Japan/China. A lot of people seem to feel Japan is too ahistorical and can take out China and then hang on to a tough defense. Our counter was an aggressive Russia and different build strategy from the USA.

Looking forward to the computer game to test these out in MWiF!

[buckyzoom]

You should post this on the wif list (the Yahoo wifdiscussion group) you're likely to get a lot of groans. It's been debated once or twice over there.

[Cheesehead]

interesting question. I would disagree. I think it is balanced fairly well. Of course it depends on your bids. But look at it from the simple goal of objective cities. With a straight, no bid game you need 34 to win. Now picture an imaginary, average game based somewhat on historical play. Say it is at the halfway point (S/O 42). Assume the Axis have conquered all the usual countries in the West and have pretty much run the Russians off the European map excepting the Caucus region (those mountains are tough to crack with all those alpine hexes). Italy is still in the war but the CW controls Gibralter and Egypt. Japan has conquered China (not a given, but a reasonable expectation if you roll average or better) and the historical Pacific perimeter of Singapore, Rabaul, Kwajalein, Truk. With this scenario the Axis would control 37 objective cities to 30 for the Allies. But you can pretty much figure that the USA is now in the war and beginning to move units into the fray. Without Gibralter, Italy will have to fight hard to keep the objectives in the Med. In fact, of those 37 Axis held objectives, 4 will be hard to hang on to for the rest of the game. Athens, Oslo, Rome and Stockholm are vulnerable for sure. Maybe Batavia as well. These are cities that are on the outskirts of the Axis perimeter and can be captured with a reasonable Allied effort. A shift of 4 cities swings the balance over to the Allies. So if the Allies accomplish this modest goal and nothing else, they can win the game. No D-Day, no recapture of Moscow, no movement in the Pacific. Of course this leaves a lot of strategy out of the picture, but usually there is a give-and-take to everything the Axis does. If they go after Spain and Gibralter to make the Med a tougher nut, chances are they don't get as far in Russia. If Japan goes after India or Australia, they may lose objective cities elsewhere. I think it's a very close call.

[Froonp]

With a straight, no bid game you need 34 to win.

John, what is this number of 34 cities ?!?!?
I think you're wrong. See 24.1.2.
With bids of 0, the Axis side needs 15+ victory cities to win (German 10, Japan 5, Italy 0), and the allies need 52+ victory cities to win (CW 19, China Nat 2, France 1, USA 17, USSR & Comm China 13).
So that's a lot more that what you are describing (no Paris & Moscow liberation for example).
The Wallies & USSR have a whole lot of hard work to win the game, as the USA & CW have against Japan.

[YohanTM2]

ORIGINAL: buckyzoom

You should post this on the wif list (the Yahoo wifdiscussion group) you're likely to get a lot of groans. It's been debated once or twice over there.

[:D]

[Cheesehead]

I just read through those sections on victory (24.1.2 and 13.8). Once again my ignorance is revealed to all. None of the games I've ever played (all 4 of them) have ever used bidding. We just picked countries in the most agreeable fashion and started playing. From the line in 13.8 which states: "The major power with the largest final total wins" I interpreted this to mean the side with the most wins. Since there are 67 objective cities....34 is the slimmest majority. I now see that I'm wrong, and I now have to agree with Tigercub (the original poster) that the Germans, and Axis in general, have an advantage unless they bid outrageously high. Thanks for setting me straight, Patrice!

[c92nichj]

I use to play the old World in Flames with out any of the extras way back back when with a friend. on talking to him he did then and still thinks the germans are to strong and the game is not balanced! i am looking for people who disagree/or not with this anyone?

Compared to historical records Germany is unlikely to achieve all it did during the first two years.
- Conquer Poland S/O '39
- Conquer Denmark & Norway M/A '40
- Conquer France/Netherlands/Belgium M/J '40
- Conquer Yugoslavia & Greece
- Align Iraq, Rumania, Hungary, Bulgaria & Finland.
- Perform an aircampaign over UK
- Sinking more than 4.500.000 tonnage of shipping in the battle of atlantic
- Perform a land campaign in Egypt.
- Blitzing it's way far into USSR.

On the other hand the axis is quite likely to do better the latter part of of the war. Japan will achive more in China, possibly conquering it, Germany is likely to get further in Russia than historically. Italy will put up more of a fight than historically.


This ofcourse had nothing to do with victoryconditions, which is anyhow one of the worst part of the game.

[fuzzy_bunnyy]

i have to agree. ive always felt that people can look at a game board for several minutes and just know who won, but victory cities seem rather abstract and well.....pointless. but of course thats very subjective and all.

[TheDishwasher]

I'm not sure I've actually ever played a game that used victory cities and I played nearly continuously for 15 years. As funny_bunnyy says, just looking at the board usually tells you who won.

[wfzimmerman]

ORIGINAL: fuzzy_bunnyy

i have to agree. ive always felt that people can look at a game board for several minutes and just know who won, but victory cities seem rather abstract and well.....pointless. but of course thats very subjective and all.

Subjectively, I've always thought victory cities make good sense.

People fight wars for control over other people. Cities are where the most people are found.

In George R. R. Martin's great medieval-themed fantasy series A SONG OF ICE AND FIRE, kings are constantly demanding that other kings "kneel" to them. Kneeling is what it's all about...

[Mziln]

ORIGINAL: wfzimmerman

ORIGINAL: fuzzy_bunnyy

i have to agree. ive always felt that people can look at a game board for several minutes and just know who won, but victory cities seem rather abstract and well.....pointless. but of course thats very subjective and all.

Subjectively, I've always thought victory cities make good sense.

People fight wars for control over other people. Cities are where the most people are found.

In George R. R. Martin's great medieval-themed fantasy series A SONG OF ICE AND FIRE, kings are constantly demanding that other kings "kneel" to them. Kneeling is what it's all about...

Nope. All wars have been fought over LAND.

People are pushed off their land or massacred in wars to clear the land for the winner’s people. The cities therefore represent the control of the surrounding lands.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Mziln

Nope. All wars have been fought over LAND.

People are pushed off their land or massacred in wars to clear the land for the winner’s people. The cities therefore represent the control of the surrounding lands.

Most, not all. Though I guess it depends on your definition of war. A few of examples:

The Vikings raided the coastal areas of Europe, hauling away valuables, including slaves. Eventually they settled some of the land (Normandy) but that was subsequent actions, after the original inhabitants had fled to inland areas due to the continuing annual raids.

The Roman Empire was constantly assaulted by outsiders and looted. Often the raiders simply went home afterwards.

The Romans themselves destroyed Carthage with no intention of settling the land afterwards.

Perhaps an argument could be made that all wars were/are fought over wealth. Wealth is usually land, but sometimes simply food, slaves, and lucre. "Advanced" civilizations fight over control of trading routes too.

[fuzzy_bunnyy]

this is getting way of topic, and in no way am I saying this should be in WIF, but the victory system needs some work IMHO. Perhaps Control of continous areas in significant region with an exponential growth of VP for more hexes in an area? say that hexes in germany have a base value, and for every continous hex you have, representing its strategic and economic significance, with modifiers for cities, factories, resources, and railroads, you get some value. if you have 2 hexes, 2x as much, 3, 4x, so on...

mind wandering, this is completly tangential and might be an interesting house rule. of course coming up with all the rules for this might be much more time than its worth. besides, I dont know about you all, but I dont really care who wins a game of WIF. I just love to play.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: fuzzy_bunnyy

this is getting way of topic, and in no way am I saying this should be in WIF, but the victory system needs some work IMHO. Perhaps Control of continous areas in significant region with an exponential growth of VP for more hexes in an area? say that hexes in germany have a base value, and for every continous hex you have, representing its strategic and economic significance, with modifiers for cities, factories, resources, and railroads, you get some value. if you have 2 hexes, 2x as much, 3, 4x, so on...

mind wandering, this is completly tangential and might be an interesting house rule. of course coming up with all the rules for this might be much more time than its worth. besides, I dont know about you all, but I dont really care who wins a game of WIF. I just love to play.

I agree with the remarks made earlier that you should know who won without any counting involved.

There is an insidious tendency to take illogical actions towards the end of a game to maximize victory points. Never a pleasant thing to watch in any game.

There is a small hope I maintain, off in the recesses of my mind, that tournament play and rating points might someday be possible with MWIF. However, I know, in detail, how that is achieved in chess and I am aware of the numerous difficulties other sports have had achieving rankings (college football, golf, tennis). It has a low probability of success, in my opinion - that doesn't stop me from wishing for one.

[Manic Inertia]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: Mziln

Nope. All wars have been fought over LAND.

People are pushed off their land or massacred in wars to clear the land for the winner’s people. The cities therefore represent the control of the surrounding lands.

Most, not all. Though I guess it depends on your definition of war. A few of examples:

The Vikings raided the coastal areas of Europe, hauling away valuables, including slaves. Eventually they settled some of the land (Normandy) but that was subsequent actions, after the original inhabitants had fled to inland areas due to the continuing annual raids.

The Roman Empire was constantly assaulted by outsiders and looted. Often the raiders simply went home afterwards.

The Romans themselves destroyed Carthage with no intention of settling the land afterwards.

Perhaps an argument could be made that all wars were/are fought over wealth. Wealth is usually land, but sometimes simply food, slaves, and lucre. "Advanced" civilizations fight over control of trading routes too.

Erm, actually the language we're speaking is the result of interbreeding between Danish Vikings and the 'anglish' of northern and central England: the Vikings never drove the indigenous folk away, they were usually a minority of overlords in their conquered territories, and were adept at assuming local culture.. in fact, in Normandy they were so successful at this that they even gave up their language in 2-3 generations..

And, um, the Romans DID settle in most of the old Carthaginian Empire, just not Carthage city itself, because they'd razed it: there's remains of Roman cities from Morrocco to Cyprus, the old Carthaginian territories..

And the raiders of the Roman Empire NEVER went back where they came from, except the Huns .. everyone else who took a bite set up a new Kingdom in it (Angles, Saxons, Franks, Scots, Suebians, Burgundians, Allemani, Vandals, Goths etc).

Sorry to be a pedantic arse, but I've been itching to show off...

[Neilster]

ORIGINAL: fuzzy_bunnyy

i have to agree. ive always felt that people can look at a game board for several minutes and just know who won, but victory cities seem rather abstract and well.....pointless. but of course thats very subjective and all.

Let's see…. Poland didn't surrender till after the fall of Warsaw. The Jerries seized control of Copenhagen and there was subsequently little resistance in the rest of Denmark (although there may not have been anyway). The Norwegian campaign dragged on for a while but with Oslo in German hands the result was never in doubt (even though there was an Allied expeditionary force to help prolong it). Paris being declared an open city helped precipitate the French collapse. I think similar arguments can be made for The Netherlands, Yugoslavia and Greece and The Philippines (sort of). Belgium was a bit like Norway, with a lot of Allied troops on hand to help prevent a collapse. The Finns held out in The Winter War against the Russians until it was obvious that Helsinki was endangered.

Moscow wasn’t taken and that proved a major blow to the Germans and a huge boost to Soviet morale. The same goes for Leningrad and Stalingrad. Seizing Rome enabled the Germans to retain control of Italy in Sep 1943, despite having only a tenuous grip on the rest of the country. The failure of the plotters against Hitler to gain control of the Berlin garrison in July 1944 doomed their plans. The Third Reich hung on until just after the fall of Berlin in 1945. It seems that anecdotally at least, and perhaps especially with the minor powers, that capitals were vital to national morale. I suppose that most of the victory cities are capitals (I don’t have WiF maps at hand).

Capitals and major cities will also contain a large proportion of a nation’s population, the organs of government, much industrial infrastructure and often control of radio and newspapers. They are likely to be in strategically important spots such as on major rivers, harbours or controlling a vital valley or pass. Another factor is that cities are quite hard to capture and hence it usually requires some local superiority to do so. So, just thinking out loud, it seems a reasonable abstraction to add up victory cities to see who’s won.

Cheers, Neilster

[fuzzy_bunnyy]

in a theoretical way this makes sense. but in the last couple of turns of a WIF game, you tend to get this horrid "who can hold the victory cities against all odds" thing going on, especially with the Axis. Ive seen Japan holding nearly every victory city in the Pacific with white print corps and supply units, but they have no navy, no convoy chains and thus no production, and have been completly knocked off the mainland. similarly, germans can sometimes hold on to "pockets" in russia, the balkans, or poland, even when they have no supply other than supply units, emergency HQ supply followed by an O-chit to turn the Hq's face up, against the entire russian army attacking them. the problem is that even if your country has no economy and no strategic position, you can still "win the game" if you hang on to enough of the right cities at the end.

just my 2 cents....

EDIT-also, forgot to mention it, but the examples of minor countries you noted are probably better covered by the rules for minors surrendering. you need to control the capital and any printed factory stacks. this tends to mean that if the capital falls, the country falls. same for major powers. the only time victory cities matter is at the end of the game, which is the biggest problem with them. mabye a tally at the end of the turn who controls the victory cities and add them up for every turn in the game....i seem to remember a chart in an annual that had the historical allegiance turn by turn of every vic city....huh. well once again i rambled on.....

[Neilster]

Yes, I see what you are saying. Perhaps an option to have variable game length would help (Is there one already?). Then throwing everything into a last ditch defence for this turn could bite one in the bum if the game continues. Another possibility would be to combine the victory city total with a score for the units that are left on the map. This will prevent suicidal attacking and encourage sensible and not wasteful defence. We have computer power to do the accounting.

Cheers, Neilster

[c92nichj]

ORIGINAL: Neilster

Yes, I see what you are saying. Perhaps an option to have variable game length would help (Is there one already?). Then throwing everything into a last ditch defence for this turn could bite one in the bum if the game continues. Another possibility would be to combine the victory city total with a score for the units that are left on the map. This will prevent suicidal attacking and encourage sensible and not wasteful defence. We have computer power to do the accounting.

Cheers, Neilster

How about measuring victory when the allies reach a certain number of Victory cities(what the number shall be can be debated)

If it happens:
J/F '45 - Major allied Victory
M/A'45 - Allied Victory
M/J '45 - Minor Allied victory
J/A '45 - Draw
S/O '45 - Minor axis victory
N/D '45 - Axis Victory
J/F '46 - Major Axis Victory