I'm seriously considering taking the plunge! (Full Version)

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



Message

Auchinleck -> I'm seriously considering taking the plunge! (3/4/2014 5:14:28 AM)

I've been following the long wait for this game to hit the PC for a number of years now. Even though I've never played the board game, and I haven't delved very deeply into war themed board games, I think I still realize the best war games have their roots in BOARD GAMES. From the outside looking in, there are some very attractive features involved in WIF. It's a handsome map, with handsome icons, a seemingly living breathing board game come to life on the pc. I have to admit the main thing that held me back from purchasing when most others were, was the lack of the AI. I kept reading that it was going to be released for 1-2 players, with solitaire play. I guess I fooled myself into thinking that meant there was some sort of rudimentary AI after all. Even if 100 bucks sounds expensive to me, I payed the $80 for Grigsby's War In The East, and the same for WITP Admiral's Edition, (because I enjoyed the Matrix versions of those games, years before they were remade in deluxe fashion). And since WIF sims WWII in it's entirety, I'm thinking it has to be worth the extra $20. Three Matrix games that I'm part particularly fond of, keep count of human and/or equipment casualties WITE, WITP, and Guns Of August. That adds a dimension of reality to those games that many wargames do not bother with. Also while playing, it is a constant reminder to me how terrible war actually is, and why mankind should somehow restrict war to games only.

I have just 4 questions if anyone wants to help sway me one way or the other, as to whether I should dive into the WIF club head first.

1) Until there is an AI, is solitaire play satisfying and interesting enough to make the game so you want to keep playing it, because of the variable factors of how dice rolls can drastically vary the outcomes of combat?
2) I haven't read in any forums how WIF displays casualties. Is it more than just icons disappearing from the board?
3) Is there a rule for the U.S. or other major countries to develop and use the Atomic Bomb towards 1945, and does it bring about a quick end to the war, as it does historically?
4) Can Submarines sinking enough ships significantly affect war supply and can they effectively sink warships as well?[sm=terms.gif]



Redan -> RE: I'm seriously considering taking the plunge! (3/4/2014 8:15:19 AM)

I have been playing board and computer games for 50 years, and this one in its current state is a certified Turkey. I can't get very far into it without encountering some known or unknown glitch; where is it now? 16 published revisions, yes? I find it not worth the trouble. A crossword puzzle without enough squares to spell the right words. Matrix has published some very fine games recently. Not this one. I don't even try to play this thing any more.



Schnaufer -> RE: I'm seriously considering taking the plunge! (3/4/2014 9:57:39 AM)

I have to agree with Redan, it is a very complex game system for sure, but Matrix QC seems to be slipping these days.

Have had trouble with 2 of the last 3 titles I purchased. Game system may be great, but implementation is not so great.

Having developers that support titles after launch is good, but is playablility taking a back seat to profits ?

Have a good day, and good luck on your purchase. [:)]



markb50k -> RE: I'm seriously considering taking the plunge! (3/4/2014 10:19:28 AM)

Seriously folks, I am in turn 15 of a Global War AAR and it plays fine. Some patience and attention to detail is all that is needed. Some little bugs here and there but nothing that has EVER made me say "I shouldn't have bought it".

This is the internet, drama reigns supreme. Have some people had bad/frustrating experiences? a resounding YES!!!

But I haven't and some others who are doing AARs haven't either, at least nothing to stop us from doing our AARs and ENJOYING the game.

Just my experience, and I'm sure you'll hear otherwise.

Thanks



Dabrion -> RE: I'm seriously considering taking the plunge! (3/4/2014 12:35:05 PM)

This topic has iterated in the last months for several times ((forum search is broken you would have to go back on the pages to find the posts). I don't feel like repeating r/n

I suggest the following: watch the tutorial videos (they are on youtube somewhere) and look into the AAR forum and the Tech forum (which doubles as a bug tracker). If you like what you see and have the time to wait for some point in time later this millenium to actually play.. then go for it. Do not trust the advertisements.


Let me just say: I shouldn't have bought it for that price.



Ur_Vile_WEdge -> RE: I'm seriously considering taking the plunge! (3/4/2014 2:16:08 PM)

Only replying to questions 3 and 4, since they're gameplay ones, not MWiF particular ones.


3) If you play with the optional rule, only the U.S. can build atomic weapons. They're nothing hugely special. You can use them with a strat bomber to pump its strategic bombing factor up to 25 for a raid. You can't use them to force Japan to surrender.


4) Submarines can do a fair bit of damage. It's hard to do as much as they did historically in the battle of the Atlantic, but that's more just because WiF players tend to take a whole huge step of precautions that were adopted later in the war, like making sure EVERYWHWERE in the atlantic is covered by air, convoying, etc.


They can also sink surface ships, but they're not really suited for it. WiF doesn't have any particular mechanism for "Sub sneaks up on carrier and torpedoes it" You'd just have to do damage with their surface factors and probably spend surprise points to pick a juicy target. And if you do that, they're really no better than a cruiser, and a lot worse than a battleship.



alexvand -> RE: I'm seriously considering taking the plunge! (3/4/2014 5:24:10 PM)

1) I happen to think that solitaire is great. Especially since there is so much to learn about this game. (I own the physical copy but haven't played it in 15 years.) I've spent more than 100 hours playing since release and have enjoyed it greatly.

2) The casualties are the icons disappearing from the map. Depending on what you roll between 1 and 3 land units will disappear back to the force pools where you can rebuild them. (Unless you choose to scrap them of course, which you may or may not depending on the situation.) When using the Planes in Flames optional rules a pilot may survive the destruction of it's air unit. Ships may end up bottomed if in port, or damaged and sent to the repair pool rather than outright destroyed.

3)Read the post above it covers this well.

4a) The subs can do significant damage depending on timing and so on. But they're far more important role is to simply exist in order to force the CW (or Japan) to cover it's convoy lines and spend precious actions defending rather than attacking. The damage they do simply by threatening is actually greater than the damage they really do. It is possible against poor CW play and with aggressive Axis play to bring the CW to it's knees. Not easy though.

4b) Sinking capital ships with subs is not modeled as well. Historically there were many carriers and battleships sunk by subs, but WiF does not model that well. It is possible but difficult to do.



bo -> RE: I'm seriously considering taking the plunge! (3/4/2014 8:07:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Redan

I have been playing board and computer games for 50 years, and this one in its current state is a certified Turkey. I can't get very far into it without encountering some known or unknown glitch; where is it now? 16 published revisions, yes? I find it not worth the trouble. A crossword puzzle without enough squares to spell the right words. Matrix has published some very fine games recently. Not this one. I don't even try to play this thing any more.


Loved Tactics ll Redan great game.

Bo



bo -> RE: I'm seriously considering taking the plunge! (3/4/2014 8:11:35 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Schnaufer

I have to agree with Redan, it is a very complex game system for sure, but Matrix QC seems to be slipping these days.

Have had trouble with 2 of the last 3 titles I purchased. Game system may be great, but implementation is not so great.

Having developers that support titles after launch is good, but is playablility taking a back seat to profits ?

Have a good day, and good luck on your purchase. [:)]


Boy would I love to answer that one hmmmm NDA. [:(]

Bo



Numdydar -> RE: I'm seriously considering taking the plunge! (3/4/2014 8:24:29 PM)

I bought it on release day and even with the bugs that were present then was able to complete entire scenarios with no problems.

In the GC I have run into several, but nothing to date that a patch has not fixed or a simple work around was available. Obviously others here have a difference of opinion on this. So your decision will need to based on whether or not the game is worth it or not. As far as I am concerned the manuals alone were worth the price lol.



Orm -> RE: I'm seriously considering taking the plunge! (3/4/2014 8:30:54 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: alex_van_d

2) The casualties are the icons disappearing from the map. Depending on what you roll between 1 and 3 land units will disappear back to the force pools where you can rebuild them. (Unless you choose to scrap them of course, which you may or may not depending on the situation.) When using the Planes in Flames optional rules a pilot may survive the destruction of it's air unit. Ships may end up bottomed if in port, or damaged and sent to the repair pool rather than outright destroyed.


All destroyed units go back to the force pool unless you scrap it.



joshuamnave -> RE: I'm seriously considering taking the plunge! (3/4/2014 9:03:08 PM)

Alex's answer was badly worded making it sound like returning or not returning the units was based on a die roll. That's how I read it on the first pass as well. But what he was saying is that the die roll determines how many units, from 1 to 3, are destroyed. And the destroyed units are then returned to the force pool.



alexvand -> RE: I'm seriously considering taking the plunge! (3/4/2014 10:45:46 PM)

Sorry about that.

Sometimes things seem so clear in your head, but don't come out so well once you write them!



Manack -> RE: I'm seriously considering taking the plunge! (3/5/2014 12:52:00 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Auchinleck
1) Until there is an AI, is solitaire play satisfying and interesting enough to make the game so you want to keep playing it, because of the variable factors of how dice rolls can drastically vary the outcomes of combat?


I don't have much interest in solitaire play. I also don't have much interest in the AI. Personally, where this game excels for me (just like the board game) is playing hot seat with your buddies on a large screen in a beer and pretzels atmosphere.

quote:


2) I haven't read in any forums how WIF displays casualties. Is it more than just icons disappearing from the board?


Not really.

quote:


3) Is there a rule for the U.S. or other major countries to develop and use the Atomic Bomb towards 1945, and does it bring about a quick end to the war, as it does historically?


Yes. But it doesn't bring about a quick end to the war. The game is really won and lost without atomic weapons. Which is historical IMHO.

quote:


4) Can Submarines sinking enough ships significantly affect war supply and can they effectively sink warships as well?[sm=terms.gif]


Submarines can have a large impact on supply and production, but really aren't there to go toe to toe with warships. Unless they get lucky and can surprise the fleet. I think this is well balanced in the game.



brian brian -> RE: I'm seriously considering taking the plunge! (3/5/2014 2:43:21 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Manack


Submarines can have a large impact on supply and production, but really aren't there to go toe to toe with warships. Unless they get lucky and can surprise the fleet. I think this is well balanced in the game.


I would disagree. SUBs sank a lot of capital ships in the war. The rules mechanics makes this more rare in the game, in my opinion.

One thing I would like to see develop out of MWiF some far-off future day, is some way to look at statistics from completed games. I think such stats would show this.


I have also thought for a long time that SUBs should create Presence of the Enemy issues. Surface ships feared the Submarine, and used Zig-Zag movement tactics as a result. But SUBs aren't part of the Presence rule.



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: I'm seriously considering taking the plunge! (3/5/2014 3:46:02 AM)

The problem with simulating the historical outcome of the War of the Atlantic is the hindsight available to players. WIF limits the availability of naval air units with long range to the years they were available historically. There is some similar modelling of the use of light carriers and escorts designed specifically for convoy escort duty.

But WIF players know the effect of using/not using escorts for convoys, so they beef up the escorts accordingly, using whatever forces are available: cruisers, battleships, even carriers. They also put a lot of air units out to sea to search for submarines. Had the Commonwealth (and USA) done that historically, they would have had better results against the submarines. If the Allies are heavy handed in protecting their convoys, then the Axis tends to cut back on building submarines. The alternative of building more and more submarines has a low rate of return.

But all this emphasis on the battle at sea can have bad effects on the Commonwealth elsewhere. Land units to defend the far flung Commonwealth possessions can get short shrift. Fighters and strategic bombers might also be fewer than desired.

In conclusion, while WIF does not model the war to rigorously follow the same pathways/results as encountered historically, it does model the trade-offs each major power had to make between land, air, and sea forces. Where those forces are deployed are crucial too, as they were historically (I am thinking of the Commonwealth's use of fighters early in the war, and Germany's use of fighters late in the war). The game does very well at capturing the effect of decisions on what to build and where to send it - as well as how aggressive to be when of the offense and how tenacious to be when on the defense. In the end, making those decisions, especially in response to what the enemy does and the luck of the dice, is where the enjoyment in WIF lies.



Manack -> RE: I'm seriously considering taking the plunge! (3/5/2014 4:59:38 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian


I would disagree. SUBs sank a lot of capital ships in the war. The rules mechanics makes this more rare in the game, in my opinion.


Matter of perspective I guess. I always thought the capital ships sunk to submarines was an insignificant loss compared the tens of millions of tons of merchant shipping lost.



Rasputitsa -> RE: I'm seriously considering taking the plunge! (3/5/2014 8:01:28 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Manack
quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian
I would disagree. SUBs sank a lot of capital ships in the war. The rules mechanics makes this more rare in the game, in my opinion.

Matter of perspective I guess. I always thought the capital ships sunk to submarines was an insignificant loss compared the tens of millions of tons of merchant shipping lost.


Quote -4b) Sinking capital ships with subs is not modeled as well. Historically there were many carriers and battleships sunk by subs, but WiF does not model that well. It is possible but difficult to do.

This theme is being repeated, so what is the evidence :

Allied capital ships (BB, CV) sunk by submarine where 'Royal Oak', 'Barham', 'Ark Royal', 'Courageous', 'Eagle', 'Wasp', 'Yorktown' (already crippled), if including CVE as capital ships then, 'Avenger', 'Audacity', 'Liscombe Bay' and 'Block Island'. The Japanese suffered the heaviest national loss of capital ships to subs, as part of the huge losses to submarines suffered by all classes of shipping, with BB 'Kongo', CV/CVLs 'Shinano', 'Shokaku', 'Taiho', 'Chuyo', 'Unryu', and CVE 'Unyo', 'Shinyo', 'Akitsu Maru'.

Germans and Italians stayed out of the way of subs, unless including the X-craft and human torpedoes ('Chariots')

Quick reference, of 38 battleships lost by all nations in WW2 (out of nearly 100 in service), there where only 3 sunk by submarine, total losses for aircraft carriers are 44, with 17 (of which 9 were CVL/CVE) sunk by submarine.

Battleships - sub losses not so significant

Aircraft Carriers - subs where a threat, especially if you include as capital ships the CVE, which go looking for subs and often found the sharp end, e.g. got hit first.

Rough guide, of 82 lost BB/CV/CVL/CVE, there where 20 lost to subs = 25%

Strategy matters, these naval losses are from coming out to fight, or running large convoy networks, some nations reduced losses of capital ships to submarines, by staying in port. Losses in capital ships to submarine, particularly battleships, seems very limited until the convoy war comes into play, then especially the aircraft carriers are put into harms way.

Disclaimer - these are the best details I could get, there may be more.



Neilster -> RE: I'm seriously considering taking the plunge! (3/5/2014 1:40:48 PM)

It's worth remembering, however, that merchant ships could be built relatively quickly and cheaply. Liberty ships were eventually turned out in a matter of weeks. Capital ships represented a far greater investment in time and resources.

Cheers, Neilster



bo -> RE: I'm seriously considering taking the plunge! (3/6/2014 1:19:38 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Neilster

It's worth remembering, however, that merchant ships could be built relatively quickly and cheaply. Liberty ships were eventually turned out in a matter of weeks. Capital ships represented a far greater investment in time and resources.

Cheers, Neilster



Neil where have you been, miss your expertise, good to see your still here and helping posters.

Bo



brian brian -> RE: I'm seriously considering taking the plunge! (3/6/2014 1:29:48 AM)

of course terms like "a lot" are relative, and comparing capital ship losses to merchant shipping is a classic example of apples and oranges. I think a fair number of cruisers on all sides went down via submarine attack as well, with plenty of "Damage" results also. and certainly a lot of submarines were lost whilst attempting to attack surface warships, particularly for the Japanese (WiF achieves this very effectively).

thank you for the statistics Rasputitsa. my point is - I don't think you will see 20 BB &/or CV sunk by submarines in a game of World in Flames, probably not ever.

in my opinion, the problem of Submarines in World in Flames is not one of hindsight at all. it is a problem of abstract modeling. it is a quick-and-dirty solution, i.e. very playable, to just use the SCS counters to be convoy escorts. capital ships were positively not used in an anti-submarine role. indeed, capital ships required their own anti-sub destroyer escorts when operating in enemy sub waters, and many potential capital ship sorties were scrubbed due to lack of escorts, which were busy on the convoy routes. check out the Royal Navy cruiser losses on the Murmansk run for an example.

and the WWII navies did not have 5 Destroyers for every single CV/BB/CA….no power had anywhere close to that amount. over time the Allies had huge numbers of corvettes, etc., for anti-submarine work. these are also modeled abstractly by simply giving the Allied CP increasing ASW points as the war moves along. For that matter, Liberty ships themselves are abstract as the USA can support millions of soldiers in Europe in 1945 without increasing the Convoy Points they have had on the board since 1943.

submarines and ASW air & naval units in the game are just a part of it that has never been developed extensively the way aircraft and specialized land unit divisions have. the players are generally not that interested; their main focus is on armored campaigns on land. for many, the sea zones are just a necessary part of modeling where the invasions go in, and abstract details are perfectly fine. of course WiF is a huge improvement over the 9 factor fleets in Third Reich. But those simple fleets in Third Reich never kept anyone from playing that game repeatedly.

aircraft vs Submarines in the game is also very over simplified. the western Allies had huge internal squabbles over assigning new 4 engine aircraft to land campaigns (Bomber Command) or the Battle of the Atlantic (Coastal Command), and the same went for aircrews, as training for naval air crews was quite different. these questions had to be decided on at the level of Roosevelt and Churchill. In World in Flames, you just scramble a FTR-2 counter to the 0 box in the Bay of Biscay and the SUBs just lost 4 surprise points if they want to attack. scramble any random aircraft with an air-to-sea factor, or use an air mission to send a twin-engine bomber (with a crew trained for land missions) to a higher box and the SUBs might start taking losses.

I don't think British carriers sailed from port in 1939 with any capability of sinking a submarine with their aircraft. HMS Courageous paid the price for this in the first two weeks of the war. When the first British plane attempted to bomb a U-Boat on the surface, the U-Boat completely won that battle as the aircraft's bombs bounced off the surface of the water, exploded in the air and destroyed the aircraft. The U-Boat took the aircrew back to Germany as prisoners. It took the Allies some time to figure out how to use aircraft to defeat the U-Boats. But in WiF, a CV will likely sink, damage, or repel a U-Boat on the first turn of the game, unless the U-Boat counter rolls a really lucky 1/10 or 2/9 split on the search dice. which does happen in the game, but not very often.

The Convoy in Flames kit attempted to improve these situations. Few people are interested in using it generally. there are always ways the game can be improved. one can say that the allocation of resources is modeled effectively in World in Flames, but the nuts-and-bolts mechanics of how submarine, merchant shipping, and ASW capabilities are used are just plain ugly in the game.



Neilster -> RE: I'm seriously considering taking the plunge! (3/6/2014 4:48:56 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: bo


quote:

ORIGINAL: Neilster

It's worth remembering, however, that merchant ships could be built relatively quickly and cheaply. Liberty ships were eventually turned out in a matter of weeks. Capital ships represented a far greater investment in time and resources.

Cheers, Neilster



Neil where have you been, miss your expertise, good to see your still here and helping posters.

Bo

I've been very busy with my duties as discipline coordinator and masseur at an exclusive all-girl academy [:'(]

Cheers, Neilster



warspite1 -> RE: I'm seriously considering taking the plunge! (3/6/2014 5:14:07 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Neilster


quote:

ORIGINAL: bo


quote:

ORIGINAL: Neilster

It's worth remembering, however, that merchant ships could be built relatively quickly and cheaply. Liberty ships were eventually turned out in a matter of weeks. Capital ships represented a far greater investment in time and resources.

Cheers, Neilster



Neil where have you been, miss your expertise, good to see your still here and helping posters.

Bo

I've been very busy with my duties as discipline coordinator and masseur at an exclusive all-girl academy [:'(]

Cheers, Neilster

warspite1

Are you the chief eunuch?



Neilster -> RE: I'm seriously considering taking the plunge! (3/6/2014 9:15:36 AM)

quote:

Are you the chief eunuch?


Unfortunately, the eunuch's brakes got tampered with and, coincidentally, a car bomb also turned his vehicle into a fireball as it plunged into a ravine.

Luckily I had put a job application in that day and I was successful [:'(]

Cheers, Neilster



Numdydar -> RE: I'm seriously considering taking the plunge! (3/6/2014 5:19:49 PM)

Please let us know what jobs you might apply for in the future so we can just quit before you apply [:D]



bo -> RE: I'm seriously considering taking the plunge! (3/6/2014 5:31:28 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Neilster


quote:

ORIGINAL: bo


quote:

ORIGINAL: Neilster

It's worth remembering, however, that merchant ships could be built relatively quickly and cheaply. Liberty ships were eventually turned out in a matter of weeks. Capital ships represented a far greater investment in time and resources.

Cheers, Neilster



Neil where have you been, miss your expertise, good to see your still here and helping posters.

Bo

I've been very busy with my duties as discipline coordinator and masseur at an exclusive all-girl academy [:'(]

Cheers, Neilster


Is that the same thing as rubbing down the poor dears tired backs after they had an exhausting 30 minutes playing badmitten. Not a bad job Neil [;)]

Bo



Neilster -> RE: I'm seriously considering taking the plunge! (3/7/2014 1:06:26 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

Please let us know what jobs you might apply for in the future so we can just quit before you apply [:D]

I'm happy with this one. The pay isn't brilliant and there's a lot of after hours stuff but for some reason I just love coming to work.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bo

Is that the same thing as rubbing down the poor dears tired backs after they had an exhausting 30 minutes playing badmitten. Not a bad job Neil

Backs, shoulders, thighs, feet...I'm very thorough.

Cheers, Neilster



Ichirou989 -> RE: I'm seriously considering taking the plunge! (3/8/2014 11:17:39 AM)

Interesting discussion that illuminates how WiF is a very deep game on the subject of World War 2, and for those willing to take the time to learn it's intricacies it's also a very rewarding experience. Even more so when played with a group of 4 or 5 like-minded individuals.

However, we do seem to have lost the OP...I wonder if he bought the game or not yet? [:D]



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.470703