World in Flames / A World at War

[Maladict]

I've decided that at some point I'll break down and get either World in Flames or A World at War. Some people here probably own them, so any advice is appreciated. I'm getting lost in all the different WiF-versions/expansions, and have a hard time comparing WiF to AWAW.
Also, in the off-chance I'll find someone to play it with, is it possible to set these games up as scenarios, to be played in a day or two? Or is it full campaign only?

[Viking]

WiF is the best and biggest WW2 game there is. If you have 4 other obsessive compulsive WW2 gaming addicts who don't have friends or families and you have a large room in your house not being used it is perfect for you.

The full game is actually played in tournament mode at annual conventions in europe and america over one whole week full time with dedicated quick and efficient players and most games reach 1944 in that time.

The Barbarossa scenario (starts M/J 1941 ends N/D 1941 iirc) can be completed in one day's free time (starting 6 pm ending midnight).

The expansions to WiF don't really make the game more complicated, they mostly just add more units to follow the same rules.

[CountDeMoney]

As Viking has already posted in this thread about his all-time fave-rave that's beyond any possible reproach, I'm not about to ruin his day saying anything even remotely negative about Wallets In Flames.

You really can't compare WiF to AWAW anyway.  It's not about apples and oranges, it's about apples and a really fucking complicated bushel of apples that would require a 3 credit grad course on apples.

Somebody around here was a playtester for AWAW, can't remember who it is, but he'll chime in soon.

[frunk]

I used to play WiF in my carefree younger days.  If you want to finish a game it's best to dedicate a space and time (a full day once a week or once a month).  If you can do that and if you can keep things moving figure about 12 hours of your life for each year of game time.  Up that estimate slightly for some of the fiddlier expansions.  Make sure everyone has read the rules at least twice beforehand and maybe even played a sample turn or two before diving in.

If you want to dip your toe in the water, you might want to wait for WiF Blitz to be released.  It claims the full war can be finished in 15 hours.

[grumbler]

I prefer the "fidldiness" of WiF, but think someone starting out will probably fare better with AWaW.  WiF has a lot of elegant but not always intuitive game mechanics.  With experienced players, it probably plays about as fast, but the learning curve is steeper than for AWaW.


If you are sure you have grogs available to play, then WiF is the gold standard.  If you have just some folks that want to try out a big WW2 game, then go for AwaW.

[Syt]

The Matrix version is also supposed to be out sometime soon(?), though the last report from the developer on the forum is that he had a heart attack and a triple bypass, so development may be further delayed.

Also, they'll release the game MP only, without AI, for the time being.

[Maladict]

Right, WiF it is, then. I suppose I'll need the final version, or are the older ones decent enough?

[CountDeMoney]

Right, WiF it is, then. I suppose I'll need the final version, or are the older ones decent enough?

Meh, 5th Edition was probably much less chrome, but Planes In Flames really juiced up the air component.  Probably still the prettiest counter work for a wargame ever, too.

[CountDeMoney]

I prefer the "fidldiness" of WiF, but think someone starting out will probably fare better with AWaW.  WiF has a lot of elegant but not always intuitive game mechanics.  With experienced players, it probably plays about as fast, but the learning curve is steeper than for AWaW.

Define "fiddliness".    Factories in Flames?  Rosie The Riveters In Flames?
Increasing the force pool 30-some new unit types without fundamentally adjusting the production system?

I dunno, maybe because I played WiF for much longer and tracked the changes since the 5th edition over time, but I felt the game play to be much easier to absorb than AWAW.  Fuck, it's got a book dedicated to research and intel alone.

If you are sure you have grogs available to play, then WiF is the gold standard.  If you have just some folks that want to try out a big WW2 game, then go for AwaW.

WiF is fun as balls multi-player, especially is DoD is used to free up a lot of pre-war positioning and the supplements that add 1946-onward force pools.

[Ed Anger]

Also, they'll release the game MP only, without AI, for the time being.

LOL, Matrix.

[CountDeMoney]

Also, they'll release the game MP only, without AI, for the time being.

LOL, Matrix.

Computerized WiF has been a fucking urban legend since the Clinton Administration.  The first one.

[frunk]

I remember playing a "beta" around when HOI first came out.  As flawed as HOI was the WiF computer game was an unsalvageable mess.

[Syt]

Also, they'll release the game MP only, without AI, for the time being.

LOL, Matrix.

I'm sure it'll be as big a success as Empires in Arms.

[Maladict]

Apparently, there's a standard 5-map version and a deluxe 6-map version.
Does it make any real difference? Will expansions work with either?