Abstractions in World in Flames are on many different levels. From the most abstract (like the initiative system) to the overly detailed (like the artillery divisions). The impulse system is of course an abstraction which can be argued. The rationale (according to the designers notes) is that often parts of the war machine was neglected due to others. The example given that the Bismarck sortie into the Atlantic was badly prepared due to the upcoming Barbarossa campaign. I'm not aware of the historical facts about this, but I think you have to consider this especially in the context of Offensive Points. I have an ingrown hate for Offensive Points due to their possible use for demanding die re-rolls in 5th editions... That's not in the rules any more, but I think they are often way to magical. They are supposed to represent a special logistical effort... However, the single valid (IMHO) use they have, where I think their abstraction level fit what they are used to modify *IS* actually the impulse system where they allow you to declare multiple impulse types simultaneously. ... which is actually a very fitting abstraction level where Offensive points match the level of the impulse system. In other words... if you really want to activate your entire war machine in a single impulse coordinated, it DOES require a special logistical effort. That being said... managing impulses is a whole little game inside the game you need to master and it actually ends up adding a lot of excitement to the game.
Hmm... I'm pretty sure that in German the stress is in the 2nd syllable of "Totaler Krieg". ... not to nitpick. I've just not heard a single American pronounce it in German ;-)
No. It looked uninspired and I chose USE instead. All my WWII stuff (and there is way too much of it) is here: thegamebox.gamesontables.com/index.php?board=39.0
I USED to prefer A3R to WiF. AWAW's rulebook, improvements to WiF, and maybe most of all, the drop in component quality makes it less clear. The big choice is on the abstraction level though. AWAW abstracts the combat a lot more. I like that.
+William Mcguinness Sure, but we also have historical records for who won what battle and with what forces. Who wants to play a game that is pre-ordained or pre-determined? The weather rules add uncertainty to the game.
And that uncertainty is absolutely vital to it being a simulation of the decision process at the high command level. They did not know what weather was coming; if the players did, it would be as unreasonable as knowing what your combat die roll would be. Sure, certain steps can be taken to try and mitigate such (scripting particular unpreparedness for example), but the intuitive answer is just to put that uncertainty right in the place where it belongs.
I guess so...in fact that's the best rational I've heard. I've always felt that having weather rules when we know the historical was worse than having a "McClellan rule", I.E. having the player act as stupid as Mac.
It's less of a big thing in WiF (although it can really throw a wrench in your plans) than in a game like Bismark, or even worse Sommer Skrala. in those, the uncertainty of the weather is a major factor adding to play.
William Mcguinness well, if you use real weather then after playing a couple of times you can micro your strategy to the weather which will impact production and impulse priorities. just my 2 cts.
There is research in the game in the sense that you can "build ahead" at the cost of extra build points. I'd say that the lack of intelligence simulation is a bigger problem. There is and "intelligence" but it really boils down to being able to buy re-rolls and modifiers for build-points. ... which IMHO makes it not interesting due to the high abstraction level. ... I mean... in principle there's nothing you can't glue onto the system as an afterthought by just letting people buy re-rolls.
You're wrong, by the way. Facing these IS fatiguing, at the least. Nor does it matter that it is I who makes me do them, rather than an external source - I do still feel obligated, and obligated to get them out before I forget the experience entirely. While I feel I owe some sort of summation of the experience, given that viewers requested it when I started these, I certainly do NOT owe some filter to my feelings. In fact, take away the pure reaction - whatever that is derived from - and the only real point to my vids disappears. I could express the issues far more briefly in writing, but it is precisely all the unconscious nuances which inform the whole experience.
Talking. In order to be fresh on my mind (or to get done at all) it comes after the final play and clean up. Quite often, I'm pretty tired by the time I start.
My father is the designer of wif and I found this really interesting, nice review
dude is your father Harry Rowland ?
Abstractions in World in Flames are on many different levels. From the most abstract (like the initiative system) to the overly detailed (like the artillery divisions).
The impulse system is of course an abstraction which can be argued. The rationale (according to the designers notes) is that often parts of the war machine was neglected due to others. The example given that the Bismarck sortie into the Atlantic was badly prepared due to the upcoming Barbarossa campaign.
I'm not aware of the historical facts about this, but I think you have to consider this especially in the context of Offensive Points.
I have an ingrown hate for Offensive Points due to their possible use for demanding die re-rolls in 5th editions... That's not in the rules any more, but I think they are often way to magical.
They are supposed to represent a special logistical effort... However, the single valid (IMHO) use they have, where I think their abstraction level fit what they are used to modify *IS* actually the impulse system where they allow you to declare multiple impulse types simultaneously. ... which is actually a very fitting abstraction level where Offensive points match the level of the impulse system. In other words... if you really want to activate your entire war machine in a single impulse coordinated, it DOES require a special logistical effort.
That being said... managing impulses is a whole little game inside the game you need to master and it actually ends up adding a lot of excitement to the game.
Kudos on a thoughtful and compelling review!
I love your reviews
thanks you Enrico
Hmm... I'm pretty sure that in German the stress is in the 2nd syllable of "Totaler Krieg".
... not to nitpick. I've just not heard a single American pronounce it in German ;-)
Nice to see some WiF on TH-cam, thanks for that! BTW did you play "The Supreme Commander"?
No. It looked uninspired and I chose USE instead.
All my WWII stuff (and there is way too much of it) is here: thegamebox.gamesontables.com/index.php?board=39.0
great review.
Do you have a preference between AWAW and WiF?
I USED to prefer A3R to WiF. AWAW's rulebook, improvements to WiF, and maybe most of all, the drop in component quality makes it less clear.
The big choice is on the abstraction level though. AWAW abstracts the combat a lot more. I like that.
I've never understood the need for "weather rules". Don't we have the historical records of what the weather was?
+William Mcguinness
Sure, but we also have historical records for who won what battle and
with what forces. Who wants to play a game that is pre-ordained or
pre-determined? The weather rules add uncertainty to the game.
And that uncertainty is absolutely vital to it being a simulation of the decision process
at the high command level. They did not know what weather was coming; if the players did,
it would be as unreasonable as knowing what your combat die roll would be. Sure, certain
steps can be taken to try and mitigate such (scripting particular unpreparedness for example),
but the intuitive answer is just to put that uncertainty right in the place where it belongs.
I guess so...in fact that's the best rational I've heard. I've always felt that having weather rules when we know the historical was worse than having a "McClellan rule", I.E. having the player act as stupid as Mac.
It's less of a big thing in WiF (although it can really throw a wrench in your plans) than in a game like Bismark, or even worse Sommer Skrala. in those, the uncertainty of the weather is a major factor adding to play.
William Mcguinness well, if you use real weather then after playing a couple of times you can micro your strategy to the weather which will impact production and impulse priorities. just my 2 cts.
any chance" Ici c'est la france" is nearing the runway?
Not for several months, at least.
Hey calandale, do you have any plans to review the new Collector's Edition of WiF by chance?
Hell no.
Hahaha, any particular reason why?
I've bought a couple of copies of WiF already. And covered it.
The wallet has burned enough.
I couldn’t resist the new hard mounted map boards with out the hideous mountain art work.
AWAW is a master piece
I was very fond of A3R/EotRS. The decrease in component quality in AWAW is painful.
There is research in the game in the sense that you can "build ahead" at the cost of extra build points.
I'd say that the lack of intelligence simulation is a bigger problem. There is and "intelligence" but it really boils down to being able to buy re-rolls and modifiers for build-points. ... which IMHO makes it not interesting due to the high abstraction level. ... I mean... in principle there's nothing you can't glue onto the system as an afterthought by just letting people buy re-rolls.
Finally! It's over!
LOL!
But...it just gets worse.
I've got AWAW on the table.
I'm more anxious to see AWAW than I was for WiF. Besides, I own AWAW. :)
PPPLLLEEEAAASSSEEE don't start your video with a sigh. What you are about to do is not that grueling, and no one is making you do it.
U still have a lot to learn about humans :-)
Haha yes, unfortunately, I think I already _know_ everything about them. My problem is with _accepting_ it.
You're wrong, by the way. Facing these IS fatiguing, at the least.
Nor does it matter that it is I who makes me do them, rather than an external source - I do still feel obligated,
and obligated to get them out before I forget the experience entirely.
While I feel I owe some sort of summation of the experience, given that viewers requested it when I started these,
I certainly do NOT owe some filter to my feelings. In fact, take away the pure reaction - whatever that is derived
from - and the only real point to my vids disappears. I could express the issues far more briefly in writing, but
it is precisely all the unconscious nuances which inform the whole experience.
By "facing," do you mean playing the game? Or making the video? I do not believe you that talking about the game for 50 minutes is fatiguing.
Talking. In order to be fresh on my mind (or to get done at all) it comes after the final play and clean up.
Quite often, I'm pretty tired by the time I start.
Wow... i'm so not touching these... at all.
It's a lot easier if you can join into a group that already plays.