Plans in Flames: A Barbarossa AAR.

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Plans in Flames: A Barbarossa AAR.

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> After Action Report >> Plans in Flames: A Barbarossa AAR.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Plans in Flames: A Barbarossa AAR. - 10/9/2013 6:55:38 AM

Grotius

Posts: 5798
Joined: 10/18/2002
From: The Imperial Palace.
Status: offline

The plan seemed so perfect: Rundstedt leading Army Group South, von Bock commanding Army Group Center, and von Leeb spearheading Army Group North. The best-made plans, and all that.

_____________________________

Post #: 1

RE: Plans in Flames: A Barbarossa AAR. - 10/9/2013 7:00:49 AM

brian brian

Posts: 3191
Joined: 11/16/2005
Status: offline

Great name!

(in reply to Grotius)

Post #: 2

RE: Plans in Flames: A Barbarossa AAR. - 10/9/2013 7:10:31 AM

Grotius

Posts: 5798
Joined: 10/18/2002
From: The Imperial Palace.
Status: offline

This is a brief AAR of my current solitaire game of "Barbarossa," one of the two shortest scenarios in Matrix World in Flames. I'll confess at the outset: while I've played hundreds of board wargames -- everything from ASL to OCS to Third Reich to, lately, the Tactical Combat System -- I've never played the boardgame version of World in Flames. But I've been beta-testing this game since for something like five years, so I've come to know and love it all the same. I think there's value in having newbs test a game like this. You want newbs to buy the game and enjoy it, so best to have a couple newbs test it, too.

If any newbs are reading this, here's some advice from another newb: try the Barbarossa scenario first. It's easier to learn than Guadalcanal, the other short scenario, which requires you to learn the naval rules. And Global War, while awesome, is a bit overwhelming for a newcomer. Barbarossa lets you learn the core of the system with only two major powers in action. Even so, as you're about to see, there's a lot to learn. Mistakes will be made in this AAR. Go easy on me, veterans!

I used the "Fast Start Barbarossa" setup to get going. Kinda wish I'd set up myself and chosen a few more optional rules. In this game, we have Partisans, but no divisions or artillery or other goodies. Still, the Fast Start has the advantage of being, well, fast.

My Germans got off to a fast start too, or so I thought. Fine weather in the first few impulses, rapid progress. This is turn 1 (May/June 1941), impulse #5. I'm surrounding units, cutting off their supply -- and wishing I were doing a better job of disorganizing them. They defend just fine when they're out of supply; it's really crucial to disorganize them too. I've been ground-striking like crazy, but I've been using too many piecemeal ground strikes and not enough concentrated air power. Already behind schedule.

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

(in reply to Grotius)

Post #: 3

RE: Plans in Flames: A Barbarossa AAR. - 10/9/2013 7:16:05 AM

Grotius

Posts: 5798
Joined: 10/18/2002
From: The Imperial Palace.
Status: offline

Things are even worse for the Germans in the south. For whatever reason, I had my Soviets set up a relatively robust line in the south. I was too cautious about trying to bust through it -- waiting until ground strikes worked, trying to get automatic-win odds, that sort of thing. By the time I got my troops moving, a summer rain had set in. I love the look of rain in MWIF, and the game system models weather really nicely. (It models most stuff really nicely, in fact: air power, naval power, land power, supply, terrain....)

This is Turn 1, (German) Impulse 9. Notice the yellow dot on the top-right of my 8-6 mechanized unit south of the Pripet Marshes. It's out of supply, thanks to the rain muddying up its path to Runstedt, who is only three hexes south. Playing MWIF, you quickly come to scan the board for the dreaded yellow top-right dot.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Grotius -- 10/9/2013 7:35:00 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Grotius)

Post #: 4

RE: Plans in Flames: A Barbarossa AAR. - 10/9/2013 7:26:19 AM

Grotius

Posts: 5798
Joined: 10/18/2002
From: The Imperial Palace.
Status: offline

July/August, 1941: The bad weather finally let up. The Germans surround Minsk and take it on the first try, way behind schedule now. I'm still saving my German offensive chit for something big; maybe I should have played it on turn 1. Meanwhile, the Russians repel a couple of attacks in the south, and I've got a virtual sitzkrieg there -- I just didn't assign enough German troops there. The Hungarians and Romanians won't win you the war down there.

On the bright side, I think I have a future as a Soviet commander! The Sovs have done a nice job of backpedaling in the north. They've sniped with their fighters when they get a chance, and otherwise protected their air power. But they also don't have to struggle with supply nearly as much as the Germans. On defense, you can trace to your home cities. On offense, gotta have that HQ in range. Newcomers, if you learn nothing else, make sure you plan where you're going to send your HQs, and whose going to draw supply from them. Almost every German unit needs to be within supply range of an HQ (the exception being units on the Baltic Coast, and even those can't stray far from the sea, especially in bad weather).

Brian, I'm glad you like the AAR name. As you'll see, it's apt. :)

Incidentally, I took this photo using the "medium resolution" version of the units, just because it looks cool. I normally play with high resolution, more zoomed in; but if you zoom out, the medium-rez units are easier on the eyes.

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

(in reply to Grotius)

Post #: 5

RE: Plans in Flames: A Barbarossa AAR. - 10/9/2013 7:31:08 AM

Grotius

Posts: 5798
Joined: 10/18/2002
From: The Imperial Palace.
Status: offline

July/August 1941, Impulse 9: More bad weather slows down the Germans. Here it clears, giving them a chance to attack the Soviet HQ just north of Pskov. Yes, there's a big gap in Soviet defenses south of Pskov. But Moscow, alas, is a long way away.

Actually, to win this scenario, the Germans need to take a whole bunch of Soviet cities, not just Moscow and Leningrad. I doubt they'll even come close. But it's fun trying!

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

(in reply to Grotius)

Post #: 6

RE: Plans in Flames: A Barbarossa AAR. - 10/9/2013 7:39:51 AM

Grotius

Posts: 5798
Joined: 10/18/2002
From: The Imperial Palace.
Status: offline

September/October 1941: The weather does not clear until the fall, and finally Rundstedt gets his men moving. A long-awaited breakthrough, at last! I should've done this on turn 1. It just took me a while to get the hang of coordinating ground strikes -- and my Russians proved all to good at making judicious use of ground support missions.

(Ground strikes disorganize the enemy, which is helpful to an attacker, and absolutely killer if the enemy is also out of supply. Ground support, by contrast, just adds combat factors to an attack, potentially altering the odds. Since the defendant usually has fewer combat factors, one aircraft on ground support can boost the defense much more than the offense. E.g., if the initial odds are 40:5, 5 ground-support air factors on offense make only a marginal difference in odds -- whereas five extra air factors on defense cut the odds in half, from 40:5 to 40:10, or from 8:1 down to 4:1.)

Anyway, it's cool to get a "breakthrough" result. You get to drive your tanks behind the enemy, and (optionally) you can make tank noises as you do so.

Took this photo at a higher MWIF zoom level, which is why it looks better. My earlier photos don't really do this game justice. It's a thing of beauty.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Grotius -- 10/9/2013 7:56:06 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Grotius)

Post #: 7

RE: Plans in Flames: A Barbarossa AAR. - 10/9/2013 7:43:36 AM

Grotius

Posts: 5798
Joined: 10/18/2002
From: The Imperial Palace.
Status: offline

End of October, 1941: Von Leeb and von Bock get moving, too! They've learned to mass their airpower; better one big 10-factor ground strike than two 5-factor ground strikes. (Steve's player's manual says this, of course, but I took a while to learn the lesson.) All of a sudden, there's a scary line of Germans bearing down on Moscow! And the Soviets are in full retreat in the south. Plans in flames? Pfft. We'll see.

More to come tomorrow.

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

(in reply to Grotius)

Post #: 8

RE: Plans in Flames: A Barbarossa AAR. - 10/9/2013 7:53:44 AM

Ian R

Posts: 3420
Joined: 8/1/2000
From: Cammeraygal Country
Status: offline

Why are the Soviets fielding units such as the 4th Guards Tank Army in 1941?

_____________________________

"I am Alfred"

(in reply to Grotius)

Post #: 9

RE: Plans in Flames: A Barbarossa AAR. - 10/9/2013 8:05:42 AM

Grotius

Posts: 5798
Joined: 10/18/2002
From: The Imperial Palace.
Status: offline

Good question. A two-part answer from me, but experts may have better explanations.

First, WIF does have an optional rule that more tightly regulates the emergence of Guards units, called "Guards Banner Units," but I'm not playing with that optional rule. (As I said at the outset, if I had to do it again, I'd have set up manually with virtually all the optional rules enabled.) Units have to perform well to get Guards status, and so forth.

Second, more generally, WIF adds a bit of randomization to the unit pool at game start, and when you build things. When you build a fighter, you're not guaranteed getting the model of your choice. Same with armor. You can mitigate this uncertainty by "scrapping" obsolete designs at various points of the game, including at game start. I don't know whether this scenario (which was set up by someone else) featured much unit-scrapping.

Anyway, perhaps a WIF expert could chime in and comment more authoritatively.

_____________________________

(in reply to Ian R)

Post #: 10

RE: Plans in Flames: A Barbarossa AAR. - 10/9/2013 2:05:21 PM

composer99

Posts: 2923
Joined: 6/6/2005
From: Ottawa, Canada
Status: offline

The unit names are largely for flavour, although as far as I am aware their combat factors tend to reflect the historical performance of the units they are named after to some extent (this will naturally be less precise for the Soviet forces because they are army-size units).

The units that best reflect the history of the Guards unit designation are the Guards Banner units, which as Grotius notes are an optional rule he isn't playing with. To my knowledge, the names of ordinary units with "Guards" in the name is probably more of a cosmetic affectation.

_____________________________

~ Composer99

(in reply to Grotius)

Post #: 11

RE: Plans in Flames: A Barbarossa AAR. - 10/9/2013 3:28:35 PM

brian brian

Posts: 3191
Joined: 11/16/2005
Status: offline

2 questions

a) - what is the "Fast Start Barbarossa" option?

b) - my memory of playing the Barbarossa scenario is that 25 Russian units must set up within 2 hexes of the German border(s)...is this still the case? I think this may be optional, I can't remember.

On the 4th Guards Tank Army I'll explain how I've seen it - I'm sure it was challenging to do the Russian unit write ups. The 9-5 Armor unit, labelled "4th GD ARM" on the counter, is the Soviet's first "white-print" unit, called "elite" unit in the game. These units have a strength of 3 when defending while out of supply; also the Russian units of this status are more effective in combat during snow weather. It has a first availability date of 1941; normally in a game starting in 1939 the earliest it could appear on the map would be the Sep/Oct 1941 turn and frequently later as the Russians rush to build a maximum quantity army before a maximum quality army.

But when setting up a scenario, all units with an availability date of that year are available to de drawn, so it is possible for the WiF & MWiF Russians to draw the 4th Guards Tank Army at start in May/Jun 1941 in the Barbarossa scenario. I have played with opponents who by agreement only let units be placed on the map if they could have been built in a campaign game by that time, which affects a few small things when setting up in Sep/Oct 1939, but that is a tiny issue for history buffs so sort out.

The real Russians awarded "Guards" designation to experienced combat units that had been successful at the front. A way to build up unit morale.

The WiF counters do things a little differently, using the "GD" (Guards) designation to differentiate the white-print / elite counters from the earlier units of that type. The highest number appears first in the force pool and as the unit designation number decreases the unit's factors increase slightly. In this case the 1st Guards Tank Army appears in the force pool in 1944 as an 11-5 ARM unit. The system is just a simple way to use some historical flavor on the units, without much synchronicity to the actual historical order of battle.

The "Guards Banner Army" units are similarly abstracted. I believe the historical Russians could promote a 'Guards' unit to a 'Guards Banner' unit.

A different problem with the system is the MECH units, which have a similar naming system. I don't think the Soviets ever put together 'Mech' units in a more standard sense the way the Germans and Americans did. Be that as it may, you can definitely see the 1st GD ARM on the board at the same time as the 1st GD MECH, whatever a Russian MECH Army may be (not historical). But part of the design is that all countries have the same unit types. World in Flames is a high level design with things partially abstracted, not a detailed recreation of an historical oob.

2 notes on the actual Russian order of battle in the war - In WiF there are no Russian "Shock" armies, such as the Russian 3rd Shock Army; created in the dark days of December 1941 it was the unit which eventually took the Reichstag in the Battle of Berlin. Which I've always thought was a pity; I thought that would have been a good choice for the MECH unit designations, or the elite INF units as I think the Shock Armies were mostly infantry and the big armor units were Guards or Guards Banner Tank Armies. ?

Also the real Russians put together "Fortress Fronts" which seem to be an inspiration for the GARRison pieces, among other units fielded by other powers. But there are no such "Fortress Front" pieces in the game, which admittedly would be hard to put on a counter. The GARR pieces do use historical Russian Infantry Army numbers, though I hope the "Fortress Front" units are mentioned in the Russian GARR write-ups.

< Message edited by brian brian -- 10/9/2013 3:37:47 PM >

(in reply to composer99)

Post #: 12

RE: Plans in Flames: A Barbarossa AAR. - 10/9/2013 3:45:56 PM

Ur_Vile_WEdge

Posts: 585
Joined: 6/28/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian

2 questions

a) - what is the "Fast Start Barbarossa" option?

b) - my memory of playing the Barbarossa scenario is that 25 Russian units must set up within 2 hexes of the German border(s)...is this still the case? I think this may be optional, I can't remember.

a) Guessing here, since I'm just a fan who watches AARs, but it's probably a computer generated auto setup for a given set of rules, something you can just push a few buttons and start playing instead of piece by piece putting your units down.

b) They changed that in uhm, I forget when exactly. One of the revised setup charts. It's now 10 Corps/armies within 2 hexes of Romania, and another 10 within 2 hexes of German controlled East Prussia or Poland.

I was never entirely certain if a unit plopped down in the hex southwest of Lvov (which is within 2 of both borders) counted against both limits or not.

(in reply to brian brian)

Post #: 13

RE: Plans in Flames: A Barbarossa AAR. - 10/9/2013 4:20:58 PM

Grotius

Posts: 5798
Joined: 10/18/2002
From: The Imperial Palace.
Status: offline

Dang it: the forum ate my first response. Trying again.

1. "Fast Start" games are saved games made by beta-testers (I think). The player has already chosen optional rules (usually just seven or eight), has already scrapped obsolete units, and usually has set up all the units for you. So you can load it up and start right away with your first action choice. It certainly saves time! Once you've played MWIF a bit, you'll probably want to make all those initial decisions yourself. (As I've mentioned already, I kinda wish I'd chosen my own optional rules.) But it's still nice to have the fast-start games, if only to load them up and see what one possible setup looks like.

2. Yep, MWIF (like WIF) requires the Soviets to set up close to the borders with the Axis. If you don't, the game makes you fix it before you finish the setup phase. The full "Global War" scenario gives the Soviets much more flexibility. And the Germans, for that matter. In the Global War game, some German players never do a Barbarossa at all, opting instead for a Sea Lion or Gibraltar or some such.

Incidentally, one nice thing about solitaire mode is that you can make your own house rules. (Obviously you could agree to such things in Netplay, too.) For example, I've made the Soviets keep some units in the Far East in this AAR, even though I could easily train them west. Likewise, I've been keeping a couple of German militia units in reserve. I did have a couple Siberian units appear north of Moscow, but I may keep them in reserve too. In "Guadalcanal," I make my Japanese set up more or less historically, even though it might be better to aim more toward India; and conversely I make my USA set up in the South Pacific, even though the Americans could hide in Honolulu until they're stronger.

< Message edited by Grotius -- 10/9/2013 4:27:10 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Ur_Vile_WEdge)

Post #: 14

RE: Plans in Flames: A Barbarossa AAR. - 10/10/2013 5:30:40 AM

Grotius

Posts: 5798
Joined: 10/18/2002
From: The Imperial Palace.
Status: offline

November/December, 1941: It's snowing in Russia. The German push toward Moscow grinds to a halt, and the Russians trudge forward in the snow. Aircraft are grounded, for the most part. Supply is a problem.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Grotius -- 10/10/2013 5:32:38 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Grotius)

Post #: 15

RE: Plans in Flames: A Barbarossa AAR. - 10/10/2013 5:37:50 AM

Grotius

Posts: 5798
Joined: 10/18/2002
From: The Imperial Palace.
Status: offline

Still, the Germans make progress in the south. The armored breakthrough threatens Kiev, so the Russians shorten their line and pull back. Again, this should have happened in the summer, not November. My bad!

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

(in reply to Grotius)

Post #: 16

RE: Plans in Flames: A Barbarossa AAR. - 10/10/2013 5:42:59 AM

Grotius

Posts: 5798
Joined: 10/18/2002
From: The Imperial Palace.
Status: offline

But the weather worsens. There's a mix of snow and blizzard in the south, slowing the German advance. Look at all those ominous yellow dots in the German rear: as Runstedt slogs forward in the snow, he leaves his air force out of supply behind him.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Grotius -- 10/10/2013 5:44:07 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Grotius)

Post #: 17

RE: Plans in Flames: A Barbarossa AAR. - 10/10/2013 5:46:02 AM

Grotius

Posts: 5798
Joined: 10/18/2002
From: The Imperial Palace.
Status: offline

By Impulse 7, it's full-on blizzard conditions in most of Russia. Around Moscow, the Russians inch forward, regaining some lost ground.

More to come tomorrow. :)

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

(in reply to Grotius)

Post #: 18

RE: Plans in Flames: A Barbarossa AAR. - 10/10/2013 3:47:37 PM

Canoerebel

Posts: 21100
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline

Here be Grotius
Flaming the world entirely
Playing AE? Nope.

(in reply to Grotius)

Post #: 19

RE: Plans in Flames: A Barbarossa AAR. - 10/10/2013 4:46:15 PM

Grotius

Posts: 5798
Joined: 10/18/2002
From: The Imperial Palace.
Status: offline

Flaming the red bear
Takes a few hours and some fuel;
A. E. takes all time.

_____________________________

(in reply to Canoerebel)

Post #: 20

RE: Plans in Flames: A Barbarossa AAR. - 10/10/2013 5:26:49 PM

Canoerebel

Posts: 21100
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline

:)

Are you beta testing WIF, Grotius?

A few questions. I hope I'm not out of line asking in your AAR.

1. Are you enjoying WiF?
2. An average AE game played at a decent but not ridiculous rate might take two to three years. How long do you think it might take to play a WiF game under the same conditions?
3. How does WiF compare to AE as far as level of enjoyment for you, the gamer?

(in reply to Grotius)

Post #: 21

RE: Plans in Flames: A Barbarossa AAR. - 10/10/2013 11:37:33 PM

Grotius

Posts: 5798
Joined: 10/18/2002
From: The Imperial Palace.
Status: offline

Hey, Canoe! Always great to hear from you. Yes, I've been beta-testing WIF since 2009, though I've occasionally gone AWOL to deal with real life and such. And no, you're not at all out of line asking questions in the AAR -- that's why I posted it, to generate discussion. To answer your questions more directly:

1. Yes, I'm really enjoying WIF. I've played dozens of board wargames, including other monsters like OCS and Third Reich/A World at War, but for whatever reason I've never played the boardgame WIF. Now I'm thinking about pre-ordering the Master Edition of WIF (which is at divisional scale, not corps scale) because I'm enjoying MWIF so much. WIF has the master-strategy features of games like "World at War," but it models aircraft and ships in a far more detailed and satisfying manner. I like WIF's scale: it has two-month turns, broken into impulses that I suppose are roughly a week long. It makes for a nice balance between playability and detail. Indeed, WIF has an unusual combination of strategy (when to declare war, where to send the US fleet, Sea Lion vs Barbarossa) and tactics (which fighter should intercept, which target should I ground-strike, should I put an AA unit here, etc). Some of the mechanics are quite innovative: turns that vary in length somewhat unpredictably, uncertainty about what you get when you build stuff, "scrapping" obsolete units, etc. All in all, I like it a lot.

2. I'm glad you asked about play time. I'm playing one of the two shortest scenarios -- only five turns, or 10 months -- and I'm almost done after about 12 hours of time played. I probably could've played in half that time if I hadn't been working on this AAR at the same time. But "Barbarossa" isn't your typical WIF experience. The real meat of this game is playing the war on a global scale, and the global scenarios take much longer. I haven't come close to finishing "Global War," the grand campaign. Over the table, Global War reportedly takes 100 hours or more. I'm thinking the computer version may cut that time somewhat, since the game enforces the rules for you, but I'm just guessing. I'm going to start a "Global War" campaign after I finish "Barbarossa," and I'll try to keep track of my time played.

3. Wow, tough question. I'll cop out and say I love things about both. I love the global scale of MWIF, and MWIF has a much more interesting political model. MWIF's production system is more fun, too, I think. I don't know which is more realistic, but the production decisions seem more interesting and far-reaching in MWIF. MWIF's aircraft aren't modeled in as much detail, but I find air missions more fun in MWIF.

On the other hand, I prefer the higher level of detail in AE, the daily turns, the hex-by-hex ship movement, the more detailed treatment of ground forces. For a game on its scale, MWIF has surprisingly detailed naval stuff -- you can select optional rules that give you every ship in the war down to CLs (but DDs remain abstracted, for the most part). But AE obviously has a more detailed naval model -- MWIF has area-movement for naval forces, and it doesn't model ship systems in nearly as much detail as AE (which models the facing and caliber of every ship's gun, etc.). AE scratches the naval-grognard itch better.

Other stuff is a wash. AE supports PBEM and has an AI; at release, MWIF won't ship with an AI, but it will support Netplay, which in my testing works pretty well -- but requires you to be online at the same time as your opponent. I personally don't see the AI as a big deal -- AE is more fun against humans, and so is MWIF. But unlike AE, MWIF actually works as a solitaire mode game, since fog of war isn't such a crucial part of the system.

Anyway, those are my initial thoughts. Glad you asked. :)

< Message edited by Grotius -- 10/10/2013 11:39:27 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Canoerebel)

Post #: 22

RE: Plans in Flames: A Barbarossa AAR. - 10/11/2013 4:09:56 AM

Grotius

Posts: 5798
Joined: 10/18/2002
From: The Imperial Palace.
Status: offline

January/February, 1942: The Russian winter rages on. Despite blizzard conditions, German troops destroy Soviet troops defending outside Leningrad, and several German and Finnish units are now poised to attack the city itself. Time is short, though: the scenario concludes at the end of this turn.

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

(in reply to Grotius)

Post #: 23

RE: Plans in Flames: A Barbarossa AAR. - 10/11/2013 4:15:56 AM

Grotius

Posts: 5798
Joined: 10/18/2002
From: The Imperial Palace.
Status: offline

The real problem isn't Leningrad, though; it's Germany's tortoise-like pace in the south. Only now are German forces descending on Kiev. Odessa remains in Soviet hands, although it may fall this turn. The snow is slowing everything down, and the Luftwaffe remains mostly grounded.

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

(in reply to Grotius)

Post #: 24

RE: Plans in Flames: A Barbarossa AAR. - 10/11/2013 3:48:38 PM

Grotius

Posts: 5798
Joined: 10/18/2002
From: The Imperial Palace.
Status: offline

In this scenario, the objective is to take more than 22 cities, and Leningrad, Moscow and Stalingrad count as two cities. Germany is nowhere near that number, and time is running out. What's more, the bad weather means this turn is probably going to end quickly. So Germany can't wait for the snow to stop, even though the weather hurts attack odds. She attacks simultaneously at Kiev, Smolensk, and Leningrad.

The snow lets up just enough for aircraft to get off the ground. Unfortunately, most of the bombers near Kiev are still grounded for lack of supply, but one can make it:

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Grotius -- 10/11/2013 3:50:13 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Grotius)

Post #: 25

RE: Plans in Flames: A Barbarossa AAR. - 10/11/2013 3:58:10 PM

Canoerebel

Posts: 21100
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline

I think I may be done with WitP: AE, at least for a long, long time. It's the best (or possibly second best) strategy game I've ever played, but the vast time commitment finally led to massive burn out.

I'm not sure I'm in the market for another game, but WiF would be one of the few that would be of interest. (The one that would absolutely be of interest would be Advanced Third Reich, which was my favorite until AE came along, but rights to the Avalon Hill games must be guarded at Fort Knox.)

I'm going to watch WiF pretty closely over the next month or so.

(in reply to Grotius)

Post #: 26

RE: Plans in Flames: A Barbarossa AAR. - 10/11/2013 4:10:53 PM

brian brian

Posts: 3191
Joined: 11/16/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Grotius

AE (which models the facing and caliber of every ship's gun, etc.).

ouch

(in reply to Grotius)

Post #: 27

RE: Plans in Flames: A Barbarossa AAR. - 10/11/2013 4:51:42 PM

Grotius

Posts: 5798
Joined: 10/18/2002
From: The Imperial Palace.
Status: offline

Canoe, I hear ya on WITP/AE. I love it to death, but it's just too all-consuming -- if you play AE, you don't have time for much else. In PBEM, I'd check and re-check everything compulsively, and I would stress out about it, stewing over while it driving to work, etc. The AI is an alternative, but obviously the AI opponent isn't nearly as good as a human, and even AI games take a long time.

I played the heck out of "Third Reich" and, to a lesser extent, "Advanced Third Reich." I haven't played "A World at War," which I guess is "Third Reich" extended to the whole world? WIF is of the same genre. It's got that grand-strategy thing going on -- but it's more detailed than "Third Reich" and its progeny. Remember the 9-factor fleets from Third Reich? WIF includes every CL and above, which I find much more satisfying than generic 9-factor fleets. WIF ships are rated for range, speed, surface combat, anti-aircraft, bombardment, ASW, etc. Likewise, Third Reich air units were generic; WIF has dozens of different aircraft, with ratings for air-to-air, air-to-sea, tactical bombardment, and strategic bombardment, plus range, extended range, twin vs single engine, night fighters, etc. WIF's land units are somewhat more like those from "Third Reich," but WMIF's optional rules include scads of division-sized units too.

Anyway, I do hope you keep an eye on MWIF. For some people, the absence of an AI may be crucial; those folks might want to wait until the AI opponent is implemented, post-release. For me, I have played wargames solitaire my whole life, and it's worth it to me to have a computer WIF that enforces the rules for me. I'd probably never play WIF on Vassal, but MWIF makes it easy to learn the rules -- the computer guides you through each phase. That said, I still spend a lot of time reading and re-reading Steve's excellent Player's Guide and Rules as Coded. If you want to play *well*, you have to learn the rules. Me, I enjoy learning wargame rules, so I don't mind.

_____________________________

(in reply to brian brian)

Post #: 28

RE: Plans in Flames: A Barbarossa AAR. - 10/11/2013 5:12:10 PM

Ur_Vile_WEdge

Posts: 585
Joined: 6/28/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Grotius

If you want to play *well*, you have to learn the rules. Me, I enjoy learning wargame rules, so I don't mind.

It's useful for knowing quasi-exploits and little "gimmicks", knowing that a first turn DoW on Yugoslavia allows you to align Rumania before the Soviets can grab Bessarabia and throw the whole spanner in the works.

The core of the war; the big brawl in the plains of the Ukraine, the carrier fight in the Pacific, the fall of France and a possible Sealion, where America should be focusing her primary efforts, the war part of the war; I mean you need to know some amount of the rules, but the best player isn't the one who is the best rules lawyer. A lot of WiF play is relatively intuitive, at least compared to other wargames. A rounding in making probability calculations quickly is probably more important than the nitty gritty of the rules texts.

(in reply to Grotius)

Post #: 29

RE: Plans in Flames: A Barbarossa AAR. - 10/11/2013 5:45:54 PM

Klydon

Posts: 2251
Joined: 11/28/2010
Status: offline

I have played both Third Reich and WiF on the table. We used to play a lot of Third Reich back in the day. WiF from my experience was up to 4th edition I think and was missing a lot of the add on modules that came later.

Basically, it isn't even close. WiF wins in so many different ways as a superior game over Third Reich. About the only thing Third Reich has going for it would be the smaller foot print the game needs in terms of space to set up.

The future of Avalon Hill games is pretty murky. The catalog is owned by Hasbro now, including computer rights to the games. Some Avalon Hill titles have been reprinted, but I think Hasbro has pretty much committed to the idea of more family oriented games and believes the war game side is a very small market, although they have spun off some titles to other companies who have done reprints of some of the "war game" titles. Unfortunately, many of the war gaming types are old geezers and it is a dying market for the most part.

(in reply to Ur_Vile_WEdge)

Post #: 30