Shannon V. OKeets
Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005 From: Honolulu, Hawaii Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Froonp quote:
ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets Ok, I'll try to butress mt argument that they should play Barbaossa and Guadalcanal numerous times, before taking on Global War. My basic point will be that Global War takes a lot of time and effort and that if you do not know what you are doing, it will mostly be wasted time. I think the concept of strategic plans built on operational lpans, built on tactical expertise should be in there somewhere too. When I first learned WiF 15 years ago, we first played Barbarossa, once, and then Guadalcanal, once too, and then we went through our first 39-45 campaign. This was only that that was interesting us. Nowadays, when introducing new players to the game, we play Barbarossa and Guadalcanal once each and then we begin a 39-45 campaign telling everyone that we will stop the game anytime, that it is just a learning game, and then we play for real. Using the computer game, with no counters to sort out, I would only play global war, each time, even to introduce new players. We would play only 2-3 turns of the beginning of the game. I would advice a lone player to play a couple of Barbarossa & Guadalcanal, and then to try Global Campaign. Yes, I agree. However, mastering Barbarossa and/or Guadalcanal would make the player much stronger when he gets to Global War. I also expect the other scenarios to get a lot more play in MWIF than they do over the board. A major drawback to the "late in the war" scenarios when playing over the board is separating out all the counters. It is easier to start Global War because there are vastly fewer counters on the map and some of the major powers are still inactive.
_____________________________
Steve Perfection is an elusive goal.
|