Historical accuracy?

Historical accuracy? (Full Version)

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

Message

sveint -> Historical accuracy? (7/23/2009 8:42:32 PM)
Having never played WiF, how historically accurate is it? As an example, how are the Italians limited in supplying North Africa: can they send a historically impossible large amount of men and supplies or is it limited? What I am hoping is that most of WiF stays within the realm of "could possibly have happened". And yes I know this isn't directly linked to the computer implementation.

micheljq -> RE: Historical accuracy? (7/23/2009 8:52:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sveint Having never played WiF, how historically accurate is it? As an example, how are the Italians limited in supplying North Africa: can they send a historically impossible large amount of men and supplies or is it limited? What I am hoping is that most of WiF stays within the realm of "could possibly have happened". And yes I know this isn't directly linked to the computer implementation. If playing without limited oversea supply, they can send an unlimited number of troops, but they are far from having and unlimited number of troops. However if any enemy ship or airplane with nav to sea factors is in the sea zone nearby, the supply to Italy is blocked and they are out of supply. That's because they must trace their basic supply path to Italy. In that case they have to maintain a presence in the sea, whether a military vessel or aircraft with air to sea factors themselves. If playing with limited oversea supply option, it's even more difficult because they must maintain a chain of convoys and/or transport from Italy to North Africa. Hope it helps.

paulderynck -> RE: Historical accuracy? (7/23/2009 8:54:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sveint Having never played WiF, how historically accurate is it? As an example, how are the Italians limited in supplying North Africa: can they send a historically impossible large amount of men and supplies or is it limited? What I am hoping is that most of WiF stays within the realm of "could possibly have happened". And yes I know this isn't directly linked to the computer implementation. The Italians are limited by the fact they start with two poor TRS (Transport) units which become prime targets for the Allies in the event hostilities start. These units are the only way to get Corps sized units across the Med. Also there is an option to require Convoy units or TRS in sea zones to conduct supply to North Africa. Without that option it is easier to keep N. Africa in supply, but a concerted effort by the Allies could still cut supply. Generally however, IMO there is very little tactical or operational historical accuracy - especially considering the action limit system. But it is positively uncanny how the game can simulate the strategic developments of WWII and yet still be able to produce believable and sometimes massive "what-if" swings in the outcome.

obermeister -> RE: Historical accuracy? (7/23/2009 9:37:50 PM)
I think it's important to remember that WiF is still a game, so you could argue whether or not relative production levels (for example) make sense or not. I think in almost all areas this game strikes a fine balance between a fun game and historical accuracy. In a historical simulation game, usually it's enough for me that the historical outcome is POSSIBLE, not that it's even necessarily probable. But there is a huge variability in how things play out, which is fantastic and keeps the game fresh. But yes, playing with the options mentioned, the Italians will have a hard time keeping the North African forces supplied, to say nothing of getting them there in the first place.

Tonqeen -> RE: Historical accuracy? (7/23/2009 9:39:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: paulderynck The Italians are limited by the fact they start with two poor TRS (Transport) units which become prime targets for the Allies in the event hostilities start. These units are the only way to get Corps sized units across the Med. Cant the german ATR ju-52 transport inf? Edit: Corrected myself, Inf DIVs, MTNs and paras it is /Tonq

paulderynck -> RE: Historical accuracy? (7/23/2009 9:44:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tonqeen quote: ORIGINAL: paulderynck The Italians are limited by the fact they start with two poor TRS (Transport) units which become prime targets for the Allies in the event hostilities start. These units are the only way to get Corps sized units across the Med. Cant the german ATR ju-52 transport inf? /Tonq Only Mountain or Para or an Inf Div and unless Tunisia is taken its range only allows transport from one hex in Sicily to one hex in Libya.

brian brian -> RE: Historical accuracy? (7/24/2009 1:10:18 AM)
the German player can build the Me-323 'Gigant' ATRs and send troops across to Tunisia, even an INF corps ... just like the real Germans did (but at the battalion to regimental level, of course). historical accuracy is pretty close in how it simulates the big decisions made at the very top. the action limits frustrate the heck out of the players, but I think the real life Commanders-in-Chief were frustrated by these as well.

Gurggulk -> RE: Historical accuracy? (7/24/2009 2:40:12 AM)
Greetings sveint, Historical accuracy is a different flavor depending what you are looking for. But first i'll say, Wif is a great "What if", game. WiF is a great game to see the combined impact of Air, Sea and Naval warfare on a global scale.The foundation of the game is sound. Its based on the history of WWII. Playablity vs realism will always come up, but overall, the game works. Your question about Italian capabilities, is not dependent on if or what option, is used or not used. Italy's capabilities are accurate, given the Axis overall military and economic picture. What the Italian player decides to build will influence its impact during the game. Where to deploy is another choice, as well as, how much the Italian and German Player are willing to cooperate with each other. Italy can decide to expand its Air Force beyond what was historical, but at a cost. It can then choose to become the leader in Strategic air power and prosecute a bombing campaign of England & later the USSR, never seen in history. (And yes i have done this in a game, with mixed results.) But the cost is paid for by the Navy and Army. If the Italian player decides to pursue a North African adventure, that's a choice that will influence builds. To increase longevity in North Africa, transports, convoys, naval airpower, and surface ships are all needed. But the devil is in the details. Build a CV or not. Lay down new ship hulls or not. How many pilots will be enough. What kind of ratio of Fighters to Bombers. What is the German player willing to commit in the med. What is a fair exchange between the nations. Will the Italian nation have to invest in a Synthetic oil plant? Oh and we can't forget, how much of a land force is going to be committed. Italy will sustain a force in North Africa equal to the investment to project it and sustain it. The Allies will disrupt those plans, no matter how well laid. No nation in the game can foresee how much it will expand its various military arms. Losses dictate replacements. Yearly additions to force pools change the face each nation wears. Choosing to Advance build aircraft and scraping the obsolent gives the game some depth you wont see in many games. I'm just scratch the surface. Asking if the game is historically accurate is going to get you many answers. But mostly they will be yes, it is. To the limit a game can be played to wargame WWII.

Extraneous -> RE: Historical accuracy? (7/24/2009 3:37:26 AM)
I have noticed that in: Barbarossa and Army Group Center in pictures post #94 and Case White AAR (After action report) post #2 German corps are named Inf, Mech, and Arm (example: XLVII Arm). Will there be a way to rename units so this inaccuracy can be corrected (example: LXVII Pzr)?

Orm -> RE: Historical accuracy? (7/24/2009 3:47:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Extraneous Will there be a way to rename units so this inaccuracy can be corrected (example: LXVII Pzr)? Yes.

Extraneous -> RE: Historical accuracy? (7/24/2009 4:02:01 AM)
What are the renaming length limitations? Can I rename division size units (can I name a unit Grossdeutschland or F�hrer-Begleit-Brigade)? Are different character sets available (can I name a unit Gro�deutschland)?

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Historical accuracy? (7/24/2009 4:12:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Extraneous What are the renaming length limitations? Can I rename division size units (can I name a unit Grossdeutschland or F�hrer-Begleit-Brigade)? Are different character sets available (can I name a unit Gro�deutschland)? There are two mechanisms: Dynamically during a game you can rename a unit. Permanently, by editing the file you can rename units. In this case, it is trickier. Naval units with long names have an abbreviated name that appears on the counter - it may use two lines. Air unit names are much harder and differ by major power. The placement of the name on the counter depends on its unit type - because the placement of the bitmapped images and various factors differ by unit type. This all falls under the umbrella of "MWIF Design Kit" and I offer no excuses if changing the data file is difficult to do or if a player messes up the editing and causes the program to crash. The font is what ever you type in in.

Cheesehead -> RE: Historical accuracy? (7/24/2009 2:56:39 PM)
Having played most of the strategic level WWII games, both board and computer, I have to say that WiF is the best. IMO there is nothing even close. What makes WiF special is the way sea, land and air forces all function together with actual units. By this I mean that there is no abstractions. Ships are named. Airplanes are designated by types. Airplane buffs will be thrilled when the American F4U Corsair arrives on the map... or the Spitfire IX, or the Focke Wulf's, etc. I think the most brilliant aspect of WiF is the Naval search system. This allows for 'Midways' to occur, where an inferior force force has the chance of defeating a superior force. It also creates a lot of uncertainty in naval opertions where sometimes oposing forces don't find each other. Some of the most tense moments in the game are when two large carrier forces are searching for each other in a sea zone. This usually occurs when one side is attempting an invasion. And land offensives rarely get anywhere without significant air power disrupting enemy defenses and providing cover against counter attacks. There is strategic bombing and sub campaigns against convoys as well. Just as in history, it is debatable how cost-effective it is to pursue these forms of economic warfare. It all works together seemlessly. It is really a work of art! Cheers John

composer99 -> RE: Historical accuracy? (7/24/2009 3:43:08 PM)
It must be said that Allied production, in general, is decreased and Axis production capability is increased to balance the game out. Otherwise it would be an Allied victory, every time. I think some of the tactical and logistical elements faced in history are sacrificed in the name of game balance, playability, and fun. The overall strategic dilemmas are very historical, although no player is shackled into the irrational decision-making processes of the dictators.

brian brian -> RE: Historical accuracy? (7/24/2009 3:56:46 PM)
I'm not sure production is all that off in WiF though. Italy is the most common example given. The real Italians completed both Roma class BBs, laid down at least one CV, poured resources in to a whole bunch of light cruisers, and equipped a bunch of infantry armies that disappeared quickly at the front in North Africa and Russia. When a WiF player skips all that and builds a half-dozen NAVs instead his opponent will then say "Italian production is so fake in this game." Also, the historical Germans built 30,000+ Me-109s. Logistics are definitely simplified. The Axis might be somewhat freed from the disadvantageous traits of their ideological leaders, but the western Allies are equally freed from the pressures of public opinion in a democracy, so they can make decisions without regards to casualties. All players are of course free to play with all the advantages of historical hindsight as well.

ItBurns -> RE: Historical accuracy? (7/28/2009 5:03:39 PM)
Admittidly I've only played WiF with Version 4 rules but the biggest problem for me is the lack of AA in the air campaign against Germany. In total Germany only has 4 AA units to represent the 14,000 heavy guns and 35,000 lighter guns manned by 900,000 air defense personel they had by 1944. Maybe factories in flames remedies this. Apart from that its seems this version of the rules makes it as realistic as you can get in a strategic level game.

Cheesehead -> RE: Historical accuracy? (7/28/2009 6:12:06 PM)
quote: Admittidly I've only played WiF with Version 4 rules but the biggest problem for me is the lack of AA in the air campaign against Germany. In total Germany only has 4 AA units to represent the 14,000 heavy guns and 35,000 lighter guns manned by 900,000 air defense personel they had by 1944. Maybe factories in flames remedies this. Apart from that its seems this version of the rules makes it as realistic as you can get in a strategic level game. This is abstracted by the fact that sometimes the bombers miss and by the fact that after bombers fly a mission they are flipped. Guns in general were added to WiF as an add-on. They are fun toys to play with but they really don't make a lot of sense in a strategic game as all divisions and corps had their own artillery units that were permanently attached. I don't mind that guns were added to the game, but this is an instance where historical accuracy and the scope of a strategic WWII game don't exctly jive. Cheers John

ItBurns -> RE: Historical accuracy? (7/28/2009 6:50:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Cheesehead quote: Admittidly I've only played WiF with Version 4 rules but the biggest problem for me is the lack of AA in the air campaign against Germany. In total Germany only has 4 AA units to represent the 14,000 heavy guns and 35,000 lighter guns manned by 900,000 air defense personel they had by 1944. Maybe factories in flames remedies this. Apart from that its seems this version of the rules makes it as realistic as you can get in a strategic level game. This is abstracted by the fact that sometimes the bombers miss and by the fact that after bombers fly a mission they are flipped. Guns in general were added to WiF as an add-on. They are fun toys to play with but they really don't make a lot of sense in a strategic game as all divisions and corps had their own artillery units that were permanently attached. I don't mind that guns were added to the game, but this is an instance where historical accuracy and the scope of a strategic WWII game don't exctly jive. Cheers John I agree that the gun divisions aren't really historically accurate even though they are fun but AA installations in German cities did exist separate from the main army formations and did cause massive allied losses. I don�t feel its accurate to say that a missed result is a way to abstract this because it never results in the loss of an allied air unit and besides the Wallies were perfectly capable of missing targets all on their own without German interference.

micheljq -> RE: Historical accuracy? (7/28/2009 7:02:18 PM)
A real AA unit would probably have a movement allowance of zero, the only way to move it by rail, and only AA factors, no or poor defense against land units if alone.

Cheesehead -> RE: Historical accuracy? (7/28/2009 7:49:42 PM)
quote: don�t feel its accurate to say that a missed result is a way to abstract this because it never results in the loss of an allied air unit and besides the Wallies were perfectly capable of missing targets all on their own without German interference. Without having the statistics of bomber losses in front of me I would still guess that no bomber unit was wiped out by AA alone. I would venture to say that AA losses would not amount to anything close to 20% of a bomber force... probably a lot less than that. So how could you justify even an abstracted AA unit that would destroy a bomber unit? This is also where action limits come into play. Action limits make more realistic the historical reality that did not allow for all military units to be active all the time because of fuel limits, exhausted men and machines and the constant need to bring atritted units up to strength with reinforcements. The combat system of WiF does not allow for partial losses. This is something found in more detailed games such as Hearts of Iron. Cheers John

ItBurns -> RE: Historical accuracy? (7/28/2009 8:59:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Cheesehead quote: don�t feel its accurate to say that a missed result is a way to abstract this because it never results in the loss of an allied air unit and besides the Wallies were perfectly capable of missing targets all on their own without German interference. Without having the statistics of bomber losses in front of me I would still guess that no bomber unit was wiped out by AA alone. I would venture to say that AA losses would not amount to anything close to 20% of a bomber force... probably a lot less than that. So how could you justify even an abstracted AA unit that would destroy a bomber unit? This is also where action limits come into play. Action limits make more realistic the historical reality that did not allow for all military units to be active all the time because of fuel limits, exhausted men and machines and the constant need to bring atritted units up to strength with reinforcements. The combat system of WiF does not allow for partial losses. This is something found in more detailed games such as Hearts of Iron. Cheers John Well as to the partial losses problem that's part of the loss of realizm in playing a strategic level game. I can't recall any paticular air raid losing enough aircraft to fighters to justify the loss of a counter either. Oh and I'd agree that they would have a movement of 0 and only a defense of 1 vs ground units. A further thing strikes me would be the political consequences of strategically bombing citys in conquered nations. Heavily bombing Paris might have brought the Vichy in as full allies to the Germans and would have shocked allied public opinion (i.e - the US entrance chit draw). These are minor things in an otherwise fun game.

macgregor -> RE: Historical accuracy? (7/28/2009 9:04:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ItBurns Admittidly I've only played WiF with Version 4 rules but the biggest problem for me is the lack of AA in the air campaign against Germany. In total Germany only has 4 AA units to represent the 14,000 heavy guns and 35,000 lighter guns manned by 900,000 air defense personel they had by 1944. Maybe factories in flames remedies this. Apart from that its seems this version of the rules makes it as realistic as you can get in a strategic level game. IIRC AA is represented. No it doesn't shoot down bomber units generally but there is a strategic bombing roll that takes intrinsic AA defense into account.

brian brian -> RE: Historical accuracy? (7/28/2009 10:41:22 PM)
attritional losses are represented by random results on the combat tables. roll badly, and the steady attrition of combat has caught up to you and a unit is removed from the map. AA is indeed updated in the Factory in Flames module with new static AA counters. AA in WiF could take out a bomber counter on occasion, albeit a rare occasion. We discussed this once on the forum and I think it was Steve who suggested stacking two AA units near the Ruhr...I was intrigued and when looking at the combat tables I think I might try that some day. Even better would be to free up the vonLeeb HQ to re-org them after firing at a heavy Allied raid, just as the Allies might be re-organizing the bombers back in England for another go. I think the Germans could possibly pull this off during their 'long retreat' portion of the game. and also, the true results of the Allied bombing campaign is one of the most debated questions of WWII still today.

morgil -> RE: Historical accuracy? (7/29/2009 3:02:04 AM)
22.4.2 Artillery (AsA option 3) A towed or motorised artillery unit has a combat factor (before modification) of �1� unless it is stacked with a land unit other than an artillery or notional unit (exceptions: anti-aircraft fire by AA units and bombardment by field artillery). Since it is illegal to use anything bigger than .50 cal on a human, the AA-tanks and stationary AA-guns are built so that they can only fire upwards, and for them to be able to fire at an approching land target, they have to be backed up a ledge or jury rigged in some way to tilt theire base. I think this is reflected in the rule, that if they are alone, they can be overrun that much easily, but stacked, they have the time to "fix" the elevation of the guns. Anyone that consideres a battery of quadlinked 20mm autocannons a defenceless target against an infantry attack, has overstudied the Geneva convention and underestimated the will to survive of the generic human.

micheljq -> RE: Historical accuracy? (7/29/2009 2:42:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: morgil 22.4.2 Artillery (AsA option 3) A towed or motorised artillery unit has a combat factor (before modification) of �1� unless it is stacked with a land unit other than an artillery or notional unit (exceptions: anti-aircraft fire by AA units and bombardment by field artillery). Since it is illegal to use anything bigger than .50 cal on a human, the AA-tanks and stationary AA-guns are built so that they can only fire upwards, and for them to be able to fire at an approching land target, they have to be backed up a ledge or jury rigged in some way to tilt theire base. I think this is reflected in the rule, that if they are alone, they can be overrun that much easily, but stacked, they have the time to "fix" the elevation of the guns. Anyone that consideres a battery of quadlinked 20mm autocannons a defenceless target against an infantry attack, has overstudied the Geneva convention and underestimated the will to survive of the generic human. What about the famous german 88mm gun? It was designed as an AA gun, but soon enough the whermacht was using those against enemy tanks with devastating results. The quadlinked 20mm was used against infantry too, at least I am quite sure the germans did.

Extraneous -> RE: Historical accuracy? (7/29/2009 2:58:17 PM)
I agree with micheljg. The Geneva Convention refers to the agreements of 1949. In which I belive your reference "Since it is illegal to use anything bigger than .50 cal on a human" is in reguards to autocannons. Guns fire in a direct line, while Howitzers fire in an arch. This defines the mission difference between types of artilery such as 105mm Guns and 105mm Howitzers. Therefore Anti-aircraft, and Anti-tank Guns fire in a direct line. I belive this rule is because a towed Artilery unit was not that maneuverable durring WW2. It takes time to change your facing on a 105mm gun and even longer on somthing bigger. Motorized Anti-aircraft units (trucks, halftracks, and tank chassis mounts) were not made for defense against ground units. [image]http://www.tarrif.net/wwii/img/guides/flak20mm_4.jpg[/image] This is a picture of a 20mm Flak. [image]http://ww2-weapons.com/WW2/Weapons/Artillery/Guns/German/Flak-36/images/Acht-Acht_Afrika_firing-px800.jpg[/image] For micheljg a German 88mm Flak 36 in North Africa at the moment of firing.

brian brian -> RE: Historical accuracy? (7/29/2009 4:15:07 PM)
again, WiF is not Squad Leader, despite the fact that you can find the letters 'mm' on some counters. the artillery units represent Army to Army Group level assets that could be concentrated at a particular point, with no organic infantry component. if these assets found themselves in the line of enemy advance, they were overrun with ease.

composer99 -> RE: Historical accuracy? (7/29/2009 4:36:23 PM)
This is also important to consider with aircraft. Even though they have pretty pictures and specific names, each air unit represents a mixed bag of different aircraft, with the plurality belonging to the type on the counter.

Froonp -> RE: Historical accuracy? (7/29/2009 4:41:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: brian brian again, WiF is not Squad Leader, despite the fact that you can find the letters 'mm' on some counters. the artillery units represent Army to Army Group level assets that could be concentrated at a particular point, with no organic infantry component. if these assets found themselves in the line of enemy advance, they were overrun with ease. quote: ORIGINAL: composer99 This is also important to consider with aircraft. Even though they have pretty pictures and specific names, each air unit represents a mixed bag of different aircraft, with the plurality belonging to the type on the counter. Right on spot.

Froonp -> RE: Historical accuracy? (7/29/2009 4:43:43 PM)
I know no WW2 strategic scaled game or computer game that is more Historical accurate than WiF FE. WiF FE have a very good WW2 taste. Often, it is WiF FE players that spoil your WW2 experience.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

3.5