Global War versus one theatre campaigns

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Global War versus one theatre campaigns

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 >> Global War versus one theatre campaigns

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Global War versus one theatre campaigns - 3/29/2015 3:21:50 AM

Neilster

Posts: 2890
Joined: 10/27/2003
From: Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
Status: offline

I understand that some people are frustrated by the lack of "Europe only" or "Pacific only" campaigns but I wanted to share my experience with board WiF many moons ago.

I taught myself how to play WiF with almost no prior wargaming experience and was a bit daunted by the naval rules. I also was less familiar with WW2 naval combat and knew far more about the European theatre of operations in those days. As a result I was mostly interested in Fascist Tide as a campaign but I'm a bit OCD and also one of the reasons I bought WiF was because it modelled the entire war, so I gave Global War a go.

I was struck by several things.

1. The overhead of running the Pacific is quite reasonable. Although the war in China is vast (and this was a bit of a revelation to me), it's a reasonably quiet theatre for a while.

2. There will be plenty of naval action in the European theatre, so don't be put off by the heavy emphasis on naval stuff in the Pacific.

3. It gives a very satisfyingly complete experience. It also taught me plenty about global strategy.

In short, don't be put off playing a campaign by the lack of "single map" ones: a definition that's a hangover from WiF and now meaningless. Give Global War a go.

Cheers, Neilster

< Message edited by Neilster -- 3/29/2015 4:27:37 AM >

Post #: 1

RE: Global War versus one theatre campaigns - 3/29/2015 4:32:06 PM

Posts: 4176
Joined: 5/1/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Neilster

I understand that some people are frustrated by the lack of "Europe only" or "Pacific only" campaigns but I wanted to share my experience with board WiF many moons ago.

I taught myself how to play WiF with almost no prior wargaming experience and was a bit daunted by the naval rules. I also was less familiar with WW2 naval combat and knew far more about the European theatre of operations in those days. As a result I was mostly interested in Fascist Tide as a campaign but I'm a bit OCD and also one of the reasons I bought WiF was because it modelled the entire war, so I gave Global War a go.

I was struck by several things.

1. The overhead of running the Pacific is quite reasonable. Although the war in China is vast (and this was a bit of a revelation to me), it's a reasonably quiet theatre for a while.

2. There will be plenty of naval action in the European theatre, so don't be put off by the heavy emphasis on naval stuff in the Pacific.

3. It gives a very satisfyingly complete experience. It also taught me plenty about global strategy.

In short, don't be put off playing a campaign by the lack of "single map" ones: a definition that's a hangover from WiF and now meaningless. Give Global War a go.

Cheers, Neilster

Hi Neilster, how are you, have you been bitten by the Tasmanian Devil

Just kidding

I understand your post pretty well and agree sort of with your post but I have a few different points, there are many computer war game players in the world and many of them are beer and pretzel players like me, I enjoy reading the rules of very complex games such as MWIF and marvel at the ingenuity and complexity of such games but I do not always enjoy playing them. Too complex too much thinking involved.

Only speaking for myself of course but I feel there are many others out there who might feel the same. To me and others but not to WIF board gamers I am sure, Global War to the casual gamer is a monster of a game too broad too complex etc. not meaning it is not good just too much to handle for some of us.

When I became a tester and saw this awesome game for the first time, I was stunned at it's complexity and shrunk from the Global War scenario. If you remember you made a post about you were glad I started an AAR on Guadalcanal because you felt a little weak on naval rules because you said you never played Guadalcanal.

Well the truth is I felt it was just about all I could handle at the time, the setup was one third of the time to set up properly as compared to Global War IMO. That is why myself and another beta tester [if he wants to say who he is fine with me] asked Steve that if it were possible at this time to release Fascist Tide as I believe heart and soul it is the best scenario out there for the casual or somewhat harden gamer.

Reason for that is I feel that Barbarossa is more like a tutorial of land combat and Guadalcanal is a tutorial for naval combat, while Fascist Tide is a combination of both, but mostly land and without being overwhelming to the newcomer to MWIF.

There is naval conflicts to be sure but I am just guessing that 75% or more of the game is land combat. Fascist Tide IMO is very easy to set up and I find it much easier to play then Global War but of course that is just my opinion. I believe with nothing to back this up is that when Steve releases Fascist Tide it might be the only scenario that many people play in solo or against an AI.

Of course in netplay players would have to be of a similar mind I understand that.

Could be wrong Neilster.

Cheers

Bo

< Message edited by bo -- 3/29/2015 6:41:07 PM >

(in reply to Neilster)

Post #: 2

RE: Global War versus one theatre campaigns - 3/29/2015 9:30:06 PM

AlbertN

Posts: 3693
Joined: 10/5/2010
From: Italy
Status: offline

With all the automations of MWiF I needed some time to grasp the naval combat, but once you get it, it is far from overwhelming.

I've to be honest, I've learnt it with the Grand Campaign and not with Guadalcanal.
Guadalcanal sets you already in the hell of action and you do not really have space to learn from mistakes.
The "Med-War" is much more contained and therefore you risk less to do massive and crippling mistakes (because as pointed out it is a sideshow at the beginning where France is the main show).

The reason for which I favor the whole ordeal is that Allies can choose how to balance their forces to an extent - admittedly to a gamey extent to have USA leaving Japan alone pratically (as Japan has little production, and mostly too few units to cover China and the Pacific properly) and smash early in Europe.

(in reply to bo)

Post #: 3

RE: Global War versus one theatre campaigns - 3/30/2015 12:03:19 AM

Posts: 4176
Joined: 5/1/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cohen

With all the automations of MWiF I needed some time to grasp the naval combat, but once you get it, it is far from overwhelming.

I've to be honest, I've learnt it with the Grand Campaign and not with Guadalcanal.
Guadalcanal sets you already in the hell of action and you do not really have space to learn from mistakes.
The "Med-War" is much more contained and therefore you risk less to do massive and crippling mistakes (because as pointed out it is a sideshow at the beginning where France is the main show).

The reason for which I favor the whole ordeal is that Allies can choose how to balance their forces to an extent - admittedly to a gamey extent to have USA leaving Japan alone pratically (as Japan has little production, and mostly too few units to cover China and the Pacific properly) and smash early in Europe.

I agree with some of your assessment and I realize you are only referring to yourself, but then you just might be a grognard who prefers huge complex games but if you read my post carefully I was not referring to that kind of player but to the player who does not want to be tied down to total world wide war, but something a little smaller so they would not be overwhelmed.

Not being argumentative just a feeling I have right or wrong.

< Message edited by bo -- 3/30/2015 1:04:46 AM >

(in reply to AlbertN)

Post #: 4

RE: Global War versus one theatre campaigns - 5/7/2015 11:02:01 PM

vonpaul

Posts: 178
Joined: 8/5/2004
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline

Haven't posted (or even checked in) for ages but the only reason I come back is to see if fascist tide is finally in the game. Imo global war is way to big for solitaire or 2 players. You need at least 4 players imo. So until we have Ai or greater than 2 player multiplayer this one will just gather dust.

Frankly I don't understand what the development roadmap for this product is , all I see are minor bug fixes. All the bugs can be gone form the current game state and I think most wif players (Or new players) will continue to give this game a miss.

Sorry guys but it an inferior product to vassal in every way I.e It's too inflexible (no undo/ out of sequence moves - build a cheat mode guys!). The things that could make it superior seem to be in the too hard basket.

Bug free global war solitaire does not equal success! :(

Hopefully I'm totally wrong and your holding back the good stuff.

(in reply to bo)

Post #: 5

RE: Global War versus one theatre campaigns - 5/8/2015 12:03:51 AM

etsadler

Posts: 148
Joined: 4/27/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: vonpaul
Sorry guys but it an inferior product to vassal in every way I.e It's too inflexible (no undo/ out of sequence moves - build a cheat mode guys!). The things that could make it superior seem to be in the too hard basket.

I've seen comments along this line before, and it really confuses me. Part of what I, and those I personally know, like about computer wargames is that finality. You click you are done, and you are done. Forgot something? So sad, too bad. When we played in the boardgame era titles like Third Reich, The Longest Day, and, yes, WiF, we had a bell. When you were done with your turn you rang the bell. Done. No going back, no oops I forgots.

Certainly not everyone has to play that way, but with a monster of a game like Wif, with so many decisions and possibility of overlooking something (which is a big part of the game to me), would you really let your opponent go back a move that unit differently? I must be missing something here.

(in reply to vonpaul)

Post #: 6

RE: Global War versus one theatre campaigns - 5/8/2015 3:37:47 AM

vonpaul

Posts: 178
Joined: 8/5/2004
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline

Yeah different stroke for different folks, My point was you can do both in vassal (rigidly enforce or not). I think you are actually right about the principle of mistakes opening up opportunities. Not really talking about someone resolving an attack and then moving back some stuff around to maximise its exploitation.

Classic example is doing ground strikes in Europe and forgetting about pacific. USA is going to suck in 44. A simple mistake has big consequences. If you like that then you are in hog heaven. Never played with someone who wanted it like that though.

Biggest wif fan I know called the rigid enforcement of sequencing as the worst thing about it. Personally it slows the game down massively in real life. Worst case it will start ruining games or forcing people to reload previous saves.

I only mention this because it's a pretty big deal to most people. Those who enjoy rigid enforcement I think are the minority of wif players. And all I see are bug fixes :(

(in reply to etsadler)

Post #: 7

RE: Global War versus one theatre campaigns - 5/8/2015 3:41:26 PM

Cataphract88

Posts: 728
Joined: 10/5/2012
From: Britannia
Status: offline

Global war wouldn't be quite so daunting if you didn't have to play all sides yourself. This game really requires an A.I.

_____________________________

Richard

(in reply to vonpaul)

Post #: 8

RE: Global War versus one theatre campaigns - 5/8/2015 5:41:07 PM

Centuur

Posts: 8802
Joined: 6/3/2011
From: Hoorn (NED).
Status: offline

No, this game needs a funtional multiplayer netplay first. World in Flames is best played with 4-5 players.

That's why there is focus on clearing away the bugs. And yes, there are also minor ones being cleared. If they are easy to fix, why not?

Progress is made, but it is slow, very slow. Steve is still focusing on getting Netplay functional. After that, the missing (optional) rules are next. I hope that the half map scenarios are part of that too (and I expect them to be, since they are easier to code than the AI (which is last but not least on the list).

_____________________________

Peter

(in reply to Cataphract88)

Post #: 9

RE: Global War versus one theatre campaigns - 5/9/2015 8:04:52 AM

Cataphract88

Posts: 728
Joined: 10/5/2012
From: Britannia
Status: offline

I am all for bugs being cleaned up and for netplay, but this complex game really does need an A.I. to help people learn the rules and get into the game in the first place. It's a complete no brainer!

_____________________________

Richard

(in reply to Centuur)

Post #: 10

RE: Global War versus one theatre campaigns - 5/9/2015 9:30:02 AM

warspite1

Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

I agree with Neilster re his comments on Global War (the fact I could play the whole war is what attracted me to the game in the first place and have never played any other scenario) - and completely disagree with the idea that Global War is too big for 2-players - in fact quite the opposite. I am sure WIF is lots of fun with 4-5 players but it is also great fun with 2. Two players means that whichever side you are on, you get to play with huge navies with quality gear - USN and IJN, great continental armies - Germany Army and Red Army, and some great air forces - Luftwaffe and USAAF.

But I also believe that the single map campaigns would help attract more interest because of a) the complexity of the game combined with b) a lot of people have a preference for land (Europe) or naval (Pacific).

In such cases the single map campaigns can make the learning experience more fun and more manageable, while at the same time giving the player the real WIF experience, without necessarily having to resort to Guadalcanal or Barbarossa which are effectively training scenarios. For those that prefer learning that way then great, but many just want to jump in and the single map scenarios, I believe, give that sensible half way house.

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

(in reply to Cataphract88)

Post #: 11

RE: Global War versus one theatre campaigns - 5/9/2015 10:45:16 AM

LeeChard

Posts: 1099
Joined: 9/12/2007
From: Michigan
Status: offline

Although my ultimate goal is to play against the AI, I have been hoping to play Fascist Tide ever since I got
comfortable with Barbarossa. It would seem that the unit placement would be mostly covered by the campaign set up,
so cutting the map in half and adding rules to require transfer of units in and out of theatre doesn't seem like
that huge of an undertaking.
The fact that I know nothing about game design means it's quite possible I have my head firmly stuck where the sun
don't shine

(in reply to warspite1)

Post #: 12

RE: Global War versus one theatre campaigns - 5/9/2015 9:45:01 PM

Shannon V. OKeets

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ranger5355

Although my ultimate goal is to play against the AI, I have been hoping to play Fascist Tide ever since I got
comfortable with Barbarossa. It would seem that the unit placement would be mostly covered by the campaign set up,
so cutting the map in half and adding rules to require transfer of units in and out of theatre doesn't seem like
that huge of an undertaking.
The fact that I know nothing about game design means it's quite possible I have my head firmly stuck where the sun
don't shine

The rules for the one-map (half world) scenarios are defined in the board game rules. But they require code to be specifically written for implementing them. Like most of the special rules code, it violates a lot of the normal rules in the game (e.g., production resources, factories, & overseas routes; supply lines; where reinforcements arrive; on whom a major power can declare war; and on and on). Violating normal rules means that the code which implements those rules has to have 'exceptions' inserted into the code for the one-map scenarios.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to LeeChard)

Post #: 13

RE: Global War versus one theatre campaigns - 5/11/2015 12:15:38 PM

LeeChard

Posts: 1099
Joined: 9/12/2007
From: Michigan
Status: offline

Thanks Okeets, I should have known it couldn't be as simple as I thought.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 14

RE: Global War versus one theatre campaigns - 5/11/2015 3:18:58 PM

Posts: 4176
Joined: 5/1/2009
Status: offline

quote:

The rules for the one-map (half world) scenarios are defined in the board game rules

Steve I know better than to say this but that is some of the problems here IMHO, it is the word "DEFINED"

Bo

< Message edited by bo -- 5/11/2015 4:36:03 PM >

(in reply to Neilster)

Post #: 15

RE: Global War versus one theatre campaigns - 5/25/2015 12:29:43 AM

pzgndr

Posts: 3170
Joined: 3/18/2004
From: Maryland
Status: offline

Well I'll be blunt. I would really like to play Fascist Tide. I really do not have an interest in the global game or pacific. With or without AI, if I'm going to play I want to play the game that I want to play. So I'm interested in the next State Of the Game announcement laying out the priorities between implementing the additional optional rules, the one theater campaigns and the AI. Sure, get the bugs fixed and NetPlay working, but seriously. Could we get te one theater campaigns worked on, with all of the coding issues involved, while other optional rules are implemented in parallel? AI will probably be a last priority, fine, but whatever the deal is, please let us know. Whatever...

(in reply to bo)

Post #: 16

RE: Global War versus one theatre campaigns - 5/25/2015 12:41:21 AM

Shannon V. OKeets

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

Well I'll be blunt. I would really like to play Fascist Tide. I really do not have an interest in the global game or pacific. With or without AI, if I'm going to play I want to play the game that I want to play. So I'm interested in the next State Of the Game announcement laying out the priorities between implementing the additional optional rules, the one theater campaigns and the AI. Sure, get the bugs fixed and NetPlay working, but seriously. Could we get te one theater campaigns worked on, with all of the coding issues involved, while other optional rules are implemented in parallel? AI will probably be a last priority, fine, but whatever the deal is, please let us know. Whatever...

I'll provide a fuller update in my next monthly report.

I prefer to make considered assessments of the future, rather then something off the top of my head - the latter often reflects my emotional state more than being fact based.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to pzgndr)

Post #: 17

RE: Global War versus one theatre campaigns - 5/26/2015 11:50:28 AM

pzgndr

Posts: 3170
Joined: 3/18/2004
From: Maryland
Status: offline