overall balance (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames



Message

loricas -> overall balance (6/8/2008 8:02:16 PM)

i search in the forum and i only find a old tread about this. I want to re-open the discussion becouse, i think, it's in my opinion the worst point of WIFFE board game.

So I have a question for all the grognard: you have ever see, in a game, germany surrender???




npilgaard -> RE: overall balance (6/8/2008 8:15:42 PM)

Not often, but I have seen Germany conquered (I was playing Germany [:)] - omitted critical moves to do a pass and end the game with 90% certainty - but the turn (and game) didn't end, and Germany was out... - so be careful to take even 10%-risks [;)])

I don't think WiF is designed to end the same way as WWII did - iirc Germany is expected to control 10 or so Victory cities at Sep/Oct '45 for an even game. So if you are looking for a conquest of Germany in 1945 as the indication of victory, then you are right, that doesn't happen very often.



loricas -> RE: overall balance (6/8/2008 8:41:11 PM)

what is the turn?? i made this tread becouse i made dozen of game, from WIFEE rav1.0 against different groups of experienced players, different option settings, and NEVER see german surrender closely to sept/opt 45. in a game germany NEVER conquer France but in Nov/Dec 45, when we stop the game, she still fighting. and i never see the bid sistem work properly.



npilgaard -> RE: overall balance (6/8/2008 9:50:17 PM)

I don't recall 100% but I think it was S/O '45 (we have sometimes tried to play into '46 to get the historical outcome you talk about).
Iirc Germany had created a large Vichy with a pretty large land army (just to try a different strategy - we were playing with an older version of the non-RaW Vichy rules (WiFcon or Annual, I don't remember) in which it was possible to get a pretty large force).
So Vichy was in charge of the (initial) defense of France, but unfortunately a surprise para-attack against Paris made all the Vichy forces become allied... Combined with an simultaneous allied invasion of France, German forces was drawn back from Russia, and a decent defense was set up, but Germany never really recovered.

This was some unusual circumstances, though - in general, Germany fall only rarely, and if they do, it is often because the allied have focused on Europe while Japan gets an easy time.

Coming to think of it, I think another game ended by almost German conquest (but not all, iirc) - Germany ran out of oil, and thus all the ARM and MECH didn't ever get face up, which of course made it a lot easier for USSR and US/CW to break the lines.



bredsjomagnus -> RE: overall balance (6/9/2008 1:10:36 AM)

But is it 50/50 for even match players or does Axis win more often than Allies?



brian brian -> RE: overall balance (6/9/2008 2:03:58 AM)

you'll get a lot of different answers on this one.



DavidFaust -> RE: overall balance (6/9/2008 2:51:33 AM)

I think play balance has alot to do with player quality.

I recall 1 game I played that Germany Surrendered before 1940.

I was playing UK and managed to get a Polish cav behind the German lines and could move into Berlin. Italy declared war and strat moved a unit into Berlin saving it. UK invaded/supported Denmark and defeated the German defences there and was in control of key German industral area's. UK troops also made very bold advancements capturing many other cities. With the war going so well the French counter attacked the Germans getting good results breaking the axis spirit and moral.

I recall another game as me as Germany declaring war on USSR in 1940 with France still in my rear. The allies decided for a German 1st policy. They did not manage to knock the Germans out but Germany was well on the way there by wars end. I recall the allies major problem in that game was the lack of space in europe to add more aircraft. It was the 1st time I have seen such a great force that covered the map with blue and green counters. The USA was using 2 offensive chits a turn against the Germans. 1 to use as a super combined and the other in a land. the 1st impulse in summer nearly took us 1 night to play.



YohanTM2 -> RE: overall balance (6/9/2008 2:05:42 PM)

I think WIFFE strikes the best balance of a WWII game ever made.

Over 15 plus years I have seen everything happen (except France not getting taken in 1940 whcih I hear can happen).

From experience game leans slighty to the Allies.

If you read the reports on the 2 annual WiF events, one in the USA, one in Europe it seems things are well balanced.



jcprom -> RE: overall balance (6/9/2008 3:38:06 PM)

IMHO, the game is more demanding for the UK/US in 1941/42. They must prepare serious invasions. Otherwise, the Russian will be too weak or pushed too far away to start steamrolling the Germans in late 1943/early 1944.

NB: play-balance also depends on the mix of modules and options you are using.




wosung -> RE: overall balance (6/9/2008 4:53:28 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jcprom
play-balance also depends on the mix of modules and options you are using.


Then it would be helpful, if in MWIF the pro-Axis/Allies tendency of options would be marked in the option screen, in case of unambiguity

I believe, this was discussed before or is even implemented?!

Regards




loricas -> RE: overall balance (6/9/2008 5:22:23 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yohan

I think WIFFE strikes the best balance of a WWII game ever made.


This may be that there isn't today a WWII grand strategy game well balanced so WIFFE is unbalanced but a few less than the others[;)]

quote:

Over 15 plus years I have seen everything happen (exceptFrance not getting taken in 1940 whcih I hear can happen).


Yes I think the same. and i see the france vichy-surrender in L/A 40.

quote:

From experience game leans slighty to the Allies.

If you read the reports on the 2 annual WiF events, one in the USA, one in Europe it seems things are well balanced.

Yes is balanced in term of victory point, due to bid sistem. If, and only if, every player made the bid to win and not to keep the nation he want.



loricas -> RE: overall balance (6/9/2008 5:45:06 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: bredsjomagnus

But is it 50/50 for even match players or does Axis win more often than Allies?

1) it's not a axis vs allied game: is a Major power individual game so you can win in term of victory point with Italy even if all the majors powers (Italy included) of the axis are conquered

2) It' s in my opinion one of the tree worst point in the WIFEE sistem

3) apart of regular bid sistem i Think that in a game of equally experienced players, if you think in term of axis vs allied the Axis are in my opinion too strong: I see a lot of game stopped due a pretty without hope situation for the allied, and only when germany or japan made a really big mistake i see the opposite.

4)I think that the first is to have the game ready to play and the trouble of balance is real only in a second time. but why we can start talk about it from now??



loricas -> RE: overall balance (6/9/2008 5:52:40 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: kingtiger_501


I recall another game as me as Germany declaring war on USSR in 1940 with France still in my rear. The allies decided for a German 1st policy. They did not manage to knock the Germans out but Germany was well on the way there by wars end.

Yes is that kind of situations that is for me evidence of a balance trouble in the european map, assumed eqaully skilled and experienced players



brian brian -> RE: overall balance (6/9/2008 5:58:21 PM)


I've been to the last four USA WiFCons, and the Allies hold the clear edge there, something like 70% or more of the victories. The bulk of those games are played with 2d10 and 90% of the optionals.

I've heard that at Euro WiFCon many more games are played with 1d10 and the Axis holds a slight edge.

I think player skill determines the balance. Given truly equal players, I think the Allies are definitely favored. But if you think that way, you should have a lower bid to play the Axis. But the majority of players don't play that way, they bid to play the country they want to play, a very important concern in such a long game. The bid system perfectly balances the game. It's just that not so many players want to truly use the system as set-up.

Playing the Allies requires more discipline...you have to throw cheap units at the Axis and watch them die, and then repeat, for a long time. You shouldn't really be making land attacks until the middle of the game, but that is an Allied mistake I see over and over again.



loricas -> RE: overall balance (6/9/2008 6:13:38 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jcprom

IMHO, the game is more demanding for the UK/US in 1941/42. They must prepare serious invasions. Otherwise, the Russian will be too weak or pushed too far away to start steamrolling the Germans in late 1943/early 1944.

NB: play-balance also depends on the mix of modules and options you are using.



in he last game i've played as germany the allied choice this strategy: the turn after i DOW USRR(M/J 41) the whole CW army (if i well remember for a total of 74 BP) was landed in france: result: i take odessa and Leningrad one year later than planned. but urss is out of european map and in M/J 42 all the CW/USA unit in France/belgium Are elimined. So don' t save the urss and risk the loss of england also. That appen in that game later. both group are
well experienced in the sistem, playng WIF from four edition



loricas -> RE: overall balance (6/9/2008 6:43:06 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian


I've been to the last four USA WiFCons, and the Allies hold the clear edge there, something like 70% or more of the victories. The bulk of those games are played with 2d10 and 90% of the optionals.

I've heard that at Euro WiFCon many more games are played with 1d10 and the Axis holds a slight edge.

I think player skill determines the balance. Given truly equal players, I think the Allies are definitely favored. But if you think that way, you should have a lower bid to play the Axis. But the majority of players don't play that way, they bid to play the country they want to play, a very important concern in such a long game. The bid system perfectly balances the game. It's just that not so many players want to truly use the system as set-up.

Playing the Allies requires more discipline...you have to throw cheap units at the Axis and watch them die, and then repeat, for a long time. You shouldn't really be making land attacks until the middle of the game, but that is an Allied mistake I see over and over again.

well, if i'm in error is better. but.. i used the 1d10 i most of my game and maybe that change a lot the situation.i agree with you about skill and experience of player, and also i agree with you about the bid sistem/balance but if so many palyer do not use it, or use bid to keep the MP they want, what sistem we have to determine victory??
and again: in my experience is a rare case the turn when a MP loss in BP term are superior of BP production so is difficult to avoid a stable european front after 42. after that point in most game the adavnce is limited to 1/2 hex a turn: in the games you see that appen??
and again: if we use bid sistem the Germany is not necessary a friend of japan so we can face strange situation: I see the Japan, in change of a Non agression treaty with USA, declare war to France, made peace, keep all the six hex around paris and voilą it's impossible made vichy.
IMHO the bid sistem is a perfect solution to avoid every question about balance: you think a MP is strong?? bid more. but in real game rarely work good



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: overall balance (6/9/2008 7:25:49 PM)

On an alternative scoring system to bidding,

Patrice sent me two files last week that listed the # of objective cities held by each of the 8 major powers, turn by turn from the start of the game thruogh to the bitter end. In combination with player bids, this lets players devise a score for games that end early, and to maintain a running score, turn by turn too. I haven't thought out all the details yet, but the raw data is suficient to make this happen.

There are two files: one for the historical outcomes, and the second for average outcomes based on a collection of actual WIF games. Of course I am certain that the optional rules and quality of players varied all over the place, but nonetheless, this simple statistic is something to use. I will probably add the ability to create a third file where the players put in their own numbers (most likely a modified version of one of the other 2 files).

One place where this is needed is for when the player plays solitaire or against the AIO, since bidding seems a little silly there.



Ohio Jones -> RE: overall balance (6/9/2008 7:35:18 PM)

We never got around to playing WIFFE, but my opponent and I had cobbled together WiF 4, Planes, Ships and Convoys, along with DoD.  I will freely admit to being an inferior player to my opponent 9 times out of 10 -- but I did mange two defeats of Germany, one where some fortunate coup results (we stopped using coups after this) brought key minors onto the allied side, and one where I managed US entry so aggressively that I was able to bring the US in prior to Pearl Harbour, and had Americans in Europe in 1942.  Still took a long time to bring Germany down, but was well worth it!

I've also lost as Germany in 1940, solely due to tactical errors, and - this one is impressive, but not in a good way - I once lost the entire pacific ocean as the Allies (even Western Samoa) and had to ship units around the Cape to reinforce India against the Japanese.



SamuraiProgrmmr -> RE: overall balance (6/9/2008 7:54:36 PM)

Bidding for sides is, of course, the great equalizer.

I don't think bidding for sides is silly for playing against the AIO. 

Personally, I hate games that allow the AI to cheat by giving it extra bonuses for production, combat, research, etc.  I would much rather ramp up (or down as the case may be) the competitiveness of the AI by shifting the victory conditions.  No matter how competent the AI is, we can have a competitive game by being able to set our bid(s) before starting a game against the AIO. 

While it is true that we could just look at the victory points to determine how well the game went, one thing is left out.  With one turn to go, how often do players do things to capture that last victory point hex needed to achieve victory?  With one turn to go, how often do you spend units to retake the last victory point hex needed to avoid loss?  Will the AIO be aware that the game is ending and it is time to pull out all of the stops?  If so, it will need to know how you are judging victory in order to know how many 'stops to pull out'.

Yes, this can be considered a 'gamey' tactic, but I think it is reasonable to assume that there are times when a full blown offensive has been thrown to give the diplomats more bargaining chips.  This may model that reality. 


While I am thinking about it, it may be advantageous to allow for a different ending date for the game.  If the AI is far from the normal players' ability ranges (either good or bad), then it might be useful to play against the AI with the victory conditions that 'The Axis Powers fall completely by <date>'.




brian brian -> RE: overall balance (6/9/2008 7:56:58 PM)

I do know this - quibbling with the victory conditions never keeps anyone from playing. [:)]

I've said it before and I'll add it here - wargamers naturally compare any game result to history and that satisfies most of them. I think victory conditions are more important in operational and tactical games rather than strategic level games. Especially in tactical games where the scenario is almost always some small battle you've never heard of.



Froonp -> RE: overall balance (6/9/2008 7:58:17 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
Patrice sent me two files last week that listed the # of objective cities held by each of the 8 major powers, turn by turn from the start of the game thruogh to the bitter end. In combination with player bids, this lets players devise a score for games that end early, and to maintain a running score, turn by turn too. I haven't thought out all the details yet, but the raw data is suficient to make this happen.

There are two files: one for the historical outcomes, and the second for average outcomes based on a collection of actual WIF games. Of course I am certain that the optional rules and quality of players varied all over the place, but nonetheless, this simple statistic is something to use. I will probably add the ability to create a third file where the players put in their own numbers (most likely a modified version of one of the other 2 files).

I'd just like to add that these files are not from me alone they are those from the Annual 2000, officially published by ADG in 2000.



Norman42 -> RE: overall balance (6/9/2008 8:15:47 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian

I think victory conditions are more important in operational and tactical games rather than strategic level games.


Absolutely.

quote:

I do know this - quibbling with the victory conditions never keeps anyone from playing.


On this I would have to add the disclaimer "...for the first half of the war."

So very many games that I have played, or watched, or read after-action-reports of have had one side of the other toss in the towel in mid 1943 as they felt "we can't win on time no matter what we do." They look at the map and the date and realize they can't achieve the historical position by XXXX date, even if they aren't far behind on victory points.

That J/A 1945 Axis Conquered date hangs like a sword over the heads of WiF players.

By its very nature, a game based on a full World Strategic Campaign of WW2 will have difficulty with this issue. To maintain history, the game requires one side to 'lose' for the first half, and the other side to 'lose' for the second half.

Most tactical games aren't quite so hamstrung by history.



loricas -> RE: overall balance (6/9/2008 9:15:02 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ohio Jones

We never got around to playing WIFFE, but my opponent and I had cobbled together WiF 4, Planes, Ships and Convoys, along with DoD. I will freely admit to being an inferior player to my opponent 9 times out of 10 -- but I did mange two defeats of Germany, one where some fortunate coup results (we stopped using coups after this) brought key minors onto the allied side, and one where I managed US entry so aggressively that I was able to bring the US in prior to Pearl Harbour, and had Americans in Europe in 1942. Still took a long time to bring Germany down, but was well worth it!

I've also lost as Germany in 1940, solely due to tactical errors, and - this one is impressive, but not in a good way - I once lost the entire pacific ocean as the Allies (even Western Samoa) and had to ship units around the Cape to reinforce India against the Japanese.

Yes, in four and even in five edition this appen normally



loricas -> RE: overall balance (6/9/2008 9:22:27 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

On an alternative scoring system to bidding,
I will probably add the ability to create a third file where the players put in their own numbers (most likely a modified version of one of the other 2 files).


very good idea. so we have a attendable statistic of games outcomes
[&o][&o][&o]



loricas -> RE: overall balance (6/9/2008 9:48:25 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian

I do know this - quibbling with the victory conditions never keeps anyone from playing. [:)]

there are two kind of players: the player that play for fun: for this victory condition have a small impact. as I and i think you are.

the player that play for win: for this, victory condition have great impact

Now victory is at individual player/MP basis. the RAW have a fews bugs.

what appen in a net game, after some months of play, if someone use one of this bugs (the non-agression pact rules for exemple)??

so is possible if we found a simple new victory sistem to multi-players game or implement the bid sistem of DOD or PATIF where one player win only if the side win from start?? it' s basically the same, the only difference is that Italy for exemple win only if axis win ??




composer99 -> RE: overall balance (6/10/2008 12:59:09 AM)

One important thing to remember is that the Axis is already supposed to be doing better than historically in WiF. I've already posted in some other topic on this point, but it is worth repeating.

Germany, at the end of the July/August 1945 turn, is supposed to have 10 objectives. Japan is supposed to have 5. Only Italy is expected to be conquered with 0 objectives. Japan, in other words, is a bit worse off than historically, but Germany is doing fantastically well compared to history.

So the Allies do not have to win the war outright by the end of the game to win a game of WiF. All they need to do is control 53 or more of 67 objectives (modified by bidding).



Norman42 -> RE: overall balance (6/10/2008 3:53:34 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: composer99

One important thing to remember is that the Axis is already supposed to be doing better than historically in WiF. I've already posted in some other topic on this point, but it is worth repeating.

Germany, at the end of the July/August 1945 turn, is supposed to have 10 objectives. Japan is supposed to have 5. Only Italy is expected to be conquered with 0 objectives. Japan, in other words, is a bit worse off than historically, but Germany is doing fantastically well compared to history.

So the Allies do not have to win the war outright by the end of the game to win a game of WiF. All they need to do is control 53 or more of 67 objectives (modified by bidding).


All very true.

However, I have found the psychological effect of being "one year behind" in capturing objectives finds the Allies often discouraged to the point of quitting in mid game. Especially for less-than-hardcore players who know history better than they know WiF victory rules.

Being unable to match history's pace is a very strong disincentive, regardless of how the 'victory' math looks on paper.



brian brian -> RE: overall balance (6/10/2008 5:48:40 AM)

Those players should keep going. It sounds like they might not know the awesome power of a Red Army well supplied with Offensive Chits. The Russians can come back from Siberia if the West is doing enough things right. Japan can be an egg shell by 1944 as well; crack it open and suddenly things change. Allied power grows year by year in WiF and you have to stick with the effort. At it's peak in the spring of 1945 they can really go.

It's not only worry about achieving objectives that lead players to start over. As the piece count keeps going up, up, up that nice low-unit-density struggle of 1940 starts to look appealing again.



npilgaard -> RE: overall balance (6/10/2008 12:57:12 PM)

If one wants to play the end-game in a more historical way with the axis conquered (or almost conquered) one option is to keep playing until that is achieved.
In our group we have played a game where the conditions for ending it was, that all axis powers must be reduced to less than half of the usual victory conditions (i.e. Germany 4, Japan 2, Italy 0) - in that way the fixed end date is avoided (and thus its impact on late production etc.), the allies are allowed the feeling of accomplishing something and those '46 units (we played with PatiF units as well) got on the table.
Victory points were of course modified (iirc each allied power got -1 VP for each turn after s/o '45, and then there was a bonus to balance this).
In that way the allies don't have to do it in a fixed time - they will probably keep playing most of the time due to their syuperior position on the map (but can of course lose the game VP-wise if they take to long).
Drawbacks are an even longer game(!) and that the axis get kicked while lying down already.

I would like to see an option to keep playing in MWiF after s/o '45 - don't need any modifications to the AIO etc. just an option to not end the game.



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: overall balance (6/10/2008 7:05:38 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: npilgaard

If one wants to play the end-game in a more historical way with the axis conquered (or almost conquered) one option is to keep playing until that is achieved.
In our group we have played a game where the conditions for ending it was, that all axis powers must be reduced to less than half of the usual victory conditions (i.e. Germany 4, Japan 2, Italy 0) - in that way the fixed end date is avoided (and thus its impact on late production etc.), the allies are allowed the feeling of accomplishing something and those '46 units (we played with PatiF units as well) got on the table.
Victory points were of course modified (iirc each allied power got -1 VP for each turn after s/o '45, and then there was a bonus to balance this).
In that way the allies don't have to do it in a fixed time - they will probably keep playing most of the time due to their syuperior position on the map (but can of course lose the game VP-wise if they take to long).
Drawbacks are an even longer game(!) and that the axis get kicked while lying down already.

I would like to see an option to keep playing in MWiF after s/o '45 - don't need any modifications to the AIO etc. just an option to not end the game.


There already is an option to extend the game 3 years (Jul/Aug 1948).

I am thinking about making it possible to have more flexibility for that option, perhaps ending the game early or setting a specific end-date (rather than just the one choice of add 3 years).



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.3125