Agreed, sometimes the rules explain how stuff works but not why we need to understand how it works. "How the heck do I get Italy in the war on my German side"-- seems to be a quintessential learning question for new players, I scratched my head as well until I pieced the card sequence together. There are several puzzles like this, but you get used to it, but only after several full plays. SK probably won't scratch your itch in the battle of the Atlantic that you get with WiF. It's still about placing U-boat/Bomber support units into the strategic warfare box and affecting delay. There are Axis commerce raids with SK ships that can force delay of British convoy markers, so that's strategic. Air raids and sub patrols are sort of tactical attacks (SK vs SK) that are fun and don't directly involve using support units. SK does well resolve the "support units run rampant at large" problem. thanks for the series.
I've been playing (not well, but hey, we can't all be strategic geniuses) since the previous version came out. One of the core design goals was to make a game where the historical outcome is a reasonable benchmark, from which players could do better (or worse). There are a lot of little wheels at work to get that to happen, many of which you'll only see once you put a full campaign in motion. And all of the card options are viable under at least some particular set of circumstances, so players really have to weigh the risks of failing to achieve some long-term strategic objective vs. the rewards if they can pull it off. Really, I remember many of the various epiphanies I had whilst playing TK!, and how much fun it was just having them. I'm looking forward to watching more light bulbs pop on in your future videos.
The last part is spot on. I plays great with any number of players. The narrative is excellent. In 39 the Russian’s attacked Manchuria did so poorly they surrendered. Japan has a card the puts one power on ice for a couple years. Since he surrendered I used on England and they were out until 44 at the earliest (war status issues). Meanwhile in Europe after watching their support markers like a hawk the Germans were in a +1 situation and invaded England. We played the entire game with England either muted of on the ropes. Germany was finally attacked by Russia in 43. In the end China completely fell as did all of non British Asia and just enough Russian VP’s FTW. I actually took Hawaii 😮 Oh Japan won the auto in late 44
@@stevendolges8372 I think you will like it! I have both WiF and AE won’t get rid of either, my kids will have to sort it out when I’m 😵. I want to play WiF but there isn’t a chance. AE? one way or the other it will hit the table this year.
@@samhudson3814 I am fortunate to have a consistent WiF group that has been playing once a month for years! I suppose if I didn't have that group it would be near impossible to get it on a table.
I tried commenting earlier but my comment disappeared! You're not alone in feeling like the rulebook is missing the "why" for lots of things. Have you checked out the "missing manual" in the files section for Axis Empires: Totaler Krieg on BGG?
Thanks for a preliminary review. I've considered AE mainly for the SK, but it still won't beat WiF with my Cruisers in Flames. Yes, it's a beast but I like my ships😁
From what I remember, part of the problem with the delay box rolls is that the modifiers do not seem to scale well. An unlucky roll can have just as bad of an effect as having poured many resources into getting the delay modifiers up to a high value.
I think the Battle of the Atlantic is a difficult design problem for grand strategic WW2, because it's not the kind of event that can be simulated by units moving around on the board. Also, there's no plausible reason for either side to repeat the same mistakes they made in real life (the Germans deploying too few submarines at first, the Allies not using the convoy system from day 1, and so on). In AWAW, you can decide how much research to put into ASW or torpedoes and how many submarines and escorts to build, but the allowable scope is constrained to avoid ahistorical, game-wrecking choices. You certainly sweat those research rolls, even more than the actual strategic combat rolls, so it's exciting, but in the end it's just a giant randomizer for determining how quickly US land units can cross the Atlantic and how soon Britain can get back on its feet with US economic aid. There is not much scope for the players to make decisions that affect the outcome except where the decision is basically pre-ordained (build as many subs as the system lets you and so on). This may sound like a criticism, but it's not, and I have no idea how you could handle it differently in a way that requires tactical skill from the players and doesn't just push the luck down to a different level (e.g. rolling for each submarine unit individually to see whether it finds a convoy or not). Does WiF give the players meaningful decisions to make on the Battle of the Atlantic where the decisions are not pre-ordained? I have no experience with it.
For WiF you have action limits. So each faction when they get to 'go' picks an action. To do naval searches and moves you have to pick either a naval action or a combined action. If you do naval you don't get to do any land stuff. Combined lets you do a few things of all types. The opportunity cost of doing submarine things is you are doing less ground things which always a tough thing to give up as the Axis. For actual submarine deployment you are looking for either low risk/low reward or high risk/high reward. The CW can only solidly protect so many sea areas. So you are either trying to hit them where the protection is weakest (often the least critical part of the convoy lines) or you are going to the most important sea area (maybe where they have many lines meeting with lots of convoys there) and hoping to get lucky. The CW has likely deployed strong escorts and air coverage to such an area. So there is tense searching and its a very active part of the game.
To get a better understanding of the design philosophy behind the game it would good to read the Totaler Krieg "Designer's Secrets" notes. It really does a great job explaining why the designers have approached the various topics of the war as they have in the game. It is really worth reading if you can find it.
I'm curious how you appraise the diplomatic/pre-war stuff handled by cards and various tables. Things could go weired - but imo yet "realistic". But many folks don't like this alt-hist part. So, to get a comprehensive assessment you *must* play the '37 campaign until war breaks out. No worries: it plays very quick
I will get there soon enough. Right now I can appreciate that the cards can give some clear A vs B choices. The game is still constrained by the map edges and artifical limitations like the Axis can't go beyond the map edge. In any game like ahistorical things are fine if they were a feasible path the leaders/people didn't happen to take.
Agreed, sometimes the rules explain how stuff works but not why we need to understand how it works. "How the heck do I get Italy in the war on my German side"-- seems to be a quintessential learning question for new players, I scratched my head as well until I pieced the card sequence together. There are several puzzles like this, but you get used to it, but only after several full plays.
SK probably won't scratch your itch in the battle of the Atlantic that you get with WiF. It's still about placing U-boat/Bomber support units into the strategic warfare box and affecting delay. There are Axis commerce raids with SK ships that can force delay of British convoy markers, so that's strategic. Air raids and sub patrols are sort of tactical attacks (SK vs SK) that are fun and don't directly involve using support units. SK does well resolve the "support units run rampant at large" problem. thanks for the series.
I've been playing (not well, but hey, we can't all be strategic geniuses) since the previous version came out. One of the core design goals was to make a game where the historical outcome is a reasonable benchmark, from which players could do better (or worse). There are a lot of little wheels at work to get that to happen, many of which you'll only see once you put a full campaign in motion. And all of the card options are viable under at least some particular set of circumstances, so players really have to weigh the risks of failing to achieve some long-term strategic objective vs. the rewards if they can pull it off.
Really, I remember many of the various epiphanies I had whilst playing TK!, and how much fun it was just having them. I'm looking forward to watching more light bulbs pop on in your future videos.
The last part is spot on. I plays great with any number of players. The narrative is excellent.
In 39 the Russian’s attacked Manchuria did so poorly they surrendered. Japan has a card the puts one power on ice for a couple years. Since he surrendered I used on England and they were out until 44 at the earliest (war status issues).
Meanwhile in Europe after watching their support markers like a hawk the Germans were in a +1 situation and invaded England.
We played the entire game with England either muted of on the ropes. Germany was finally attacked by Russia in 43.
In the end China completely fell as did all of non British Asia and just enough Russian VP’s FTW. I actually took Hawaii 😮
Oh Japan won the auto in late 44
Sounds like an exciting campaign!
@@stevendolges8372 I think you will like it! I have both WiF and AE won’t get rid of either, my kids will have to sort it out when I’m 😵.
I want to play WiF but there isn’t a chance. AE? one way or the other it will hit the table this year.
@@samhudson3814 I am fortunate to have a consistent WiF group that has been playing once a month for years! I suppose if I didn't have that group it would be near impossible to get it on a table.
Strat bombers are one and done but negate the VP value of the hex. After your look at Narvik, you can see how important and game changing they are.
Appreciate hearing your impressions.
I tried commenting earlier but my comment disappeared! You're not alone in feeling like the rulebook is missing the "why" for lots of things. Have you checked out the "missing manual" in the files section for Axis Empires: Totaler Krieg on BGG?
Helped me a lot 👍
Oooh i will need to go read the missing manual then. I had not seen it. Thanks!
Thanks for a preliminary review. I've considered AE mainly for the SK, but it still won't beat WiF with my Cruisers in Flames. Yes, it's a beast but I like my ships😁
From what I remember, part of the problem with the delay box rolls is that the modifiers do not seem to scale well. An unlucky roll can have just as bad of an effect as having poured many resources into getting the delay modifiers up to a high value.
I think the Battle of the Atlantic is a difficult design problem for grand strategic WW2, because it's not the kind of event that can be simulated by units moving around on the board. Also, there's no plausible reason for either side to repeat the same mistakes they made in real life (the Germans deploying too few submarines at first, the Allies not using the convoy system from day 1, and so on). In AWAW, you can decide how much research to put into ASW or torpedoes and how many submarines and escorts to build, but the allowable scope is constrained to avoid ahistorical, game-wrecking choices. You certainly sweat those research rolls, even more than the actual strategic combat rolls, so it's exciting, but in the end it's just a giant randomizer for determining how quickly US land units can cross the Atlantic and how soon Britain can get back on its feet with US economic aid. There is not much scope for the players to make decisions that affect the outcome except where the decision is basically pre-ordained (build as many subs as the system lets you and so on). This may sound like a criticism, but it's not, and I have no idea how you could handle it differently in a way that requires tactical skill from the players and doesn't just push the luck down to a different level (e.g. rolling for each submarine unit individually to see whether it finds a convoy or not). Does WiF give the players meaningful decisions to make on the Battle of the Atlantic where the decisions are not pre-ordained? I have no experience with it.
For WiF you have action limits. So each faction when they get to 'go' picks an action. To do naval searches and moves you have to pick either a naval action or a combined action. If you do naval you don't get to do any land stuff. Combined lets you do a few things of all types. The opportunity cost of doing submarine things is you are doing less ground things which always a tough thing to give up as the Axis. For actual submarine deployment you are looking for either low risk/low reward or high risk/high reward. The CW can only solidly protect so many sea areas. So you are either trying to hit them where the protection is weakest (often the least critical part of the convoy lines) or you are going to the most important sea area (maybe where they have many lines meeting with lots of convoys there) and hoping to get lucky. The CW has likely deployed strong escorts and air coverage to such an area. So there is tense searching and its a very active part of the game.
I’m in love with this game lol. Great series. No idea where you live but will be playing at Game more in Oregon in. June
I'm in the PNW but Oregon is too far. I can only make like 1 convention a year!
I should take a. Week and come visit :) jk but which convention do you attend
To get a better understanding of the design philosophy behind the game it would good to read the Totaler Krieg "Designer's Secrets" notes. It really does a great job explaining why the designers have approached the various topics of the war as they have in the game. It is really worth reading if you can find it.
Would love to read it if someone has a link
I'm curious how you appraise the diplomatic/pre-war stuff handled by cards and various tables. Things could go weired - but imo yet "realistic". But many folks don't like this alt-hist part. So, to get a comprehensive assessment you *must* play the '37 campaign until war breaks out. No worries: it plays very quick
I will get there soon enough. Right now I can appreciate that the cards can give some clear A vs B choices. The game is still constrained by the map edges and artifical limitations like the Axis can't go beyond the map edge. In any game like ahistorical things are fine if they were a feasible path the leaders/people didn't happen to take.