Combined WiF/DoD III Campaign Playthrough #16: Nov/Dec 1938 - Jan/Feb 1939
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 4 окт 2024
- A double episode! This installment takes us through the end of 1938 and into the new year of 1939. It's not my intent for this series to be a "real time" replay, there's already an excellent channel doing real time coverage of WWII. The next episode has been filmed, and I hope to have it edited and uploaded in a more timely manner. Things are starting to accelerate in 1939, as you will see. Could this be the year a major war breaks out in Europe?
I wish this was daily. Keep up the fantastic work!
i had maybe 1% interest in this game, but the way WiF works with DoD is so captivating. i wish i had the fat stax for it. i go back and watch episodes if i feel like i missed anything. gr8 stuff
Thanks! While WiF (and DoD) isn't perfect, the interface between the two is rather seamless. Things flow pretty nicely and DoD can definitely change up the same ol', same ol' feeling you can get from the historical WiF campaign start.
Thank you best work
Just saw this came out. I have been looking forward to your next turn. Keep up the great work
Nearly missed it. With that sidebar RUclips image of a green dice tray!
Fixed the thumbnail so it matches (most of) the others now. Thanks for watching, and I'm glad you didn't miss it!
I wonder when will be new episode I just can't wait for it!
I am almost done editing the next one. I hope to have it uploaded tonight, or tomorrow at the latest!
Yet another excellent episode, as usual. 😁
Good style almost as fun as playing.
This is really cool, thanks so much for doing this. Dod really changes the game and I’m looking forward to see how your politics changes history. Would you post another turn in the next 24 hours? No pressure lol
I'm somewhat surprised by your argument wrt. incomplete conquest.
I've never thought of them as to mitigate player elimination. - mostly because I've never played WiF the same way as we played EiA. We've always played it in 2 teams and not really cared for player elimination.
Sure, it might make some weird situations if Italiy fights on from Albania, but it sure also creates historically weird situations if the Germans just get control of Iceland and Greenland by conquering mainland Denmark. No such thing happened historically.
Iceland declared itself neutral and effectively independent from April 10th 1940 to May 10th when the British invaded Iceland. The Axis did not get access to Iceland (also due to the RN)
Greenland was officially still a part of Denmark, but the Danish ambassador to the US, decided to act independently of the Danish government and for practical purposes aligned Greenland with the US.
I've always thought of the incomplete conquest rules to handle stuff like that (and France/Belgium/Netherlands overseas territories)
The WiF political rules worked well enough when it was designed as a WWII game, but when Harry made the decision to try to turn it into more of a "sandbox" type game the political rules have been a bit inadequate. This is, of course, accentuated by playing with DoD. In the current game, the Denmark situation is a bit of an outlier because Germany was not at war with any MP when she invaded and conquered Denmark. There was no co-belligerent for the Danish government to flee to or work with. Allowing Denmark to fight on from Iceland and Greenland after it had been occupied and conquered is inappropriate.
The only reason the Germans did not control Iceland or Greenland historically is that they lacked the capability to occupy them with troops. Had it been the Germans who showed up on May 10th instead of the British, Iceland would have put up the same insignificant and unsuccessful resistance. However, any Germans occupying Iceland (both historically or in WiF) will be little more than PoW's when the Allies decide to invade. Germany has no practical hope of keeping any units in Iceland or Greenland in supply until and unless the RN is eviscerated (and the USN not yet in the war).
The US also has US Entry Option 7 Occupy Greenland & Iceland, which nicely covers the historical events in a simple and clean way. That is still a viable option with the current situation in this game and without using the Incomplete Conquest rule.
One of the reasons why so many bad decisions found their way into WiF Final Edition was that Harry took unique historical events and wrote rules to make them apply universally. This Iceland situation is a good example. There are very few minor countries that control territory outside of their home country (mostly it is just the Netherlands, Denmark, Portugal, and Belgium), so this isn't a widespread issue. All such instances (like the NEI, Iceland, etc.) that warrant it should be handled by special rule, if at all. Iceland (and to a lesser extent Greenland) is a strategically important piece of land with regard to the Battle of the Atlantic. It was historically invaded first by the British and then later occupied by the Americans. That event is essentially covered by US Entry Option 7. There is no need to consider Denmark "incompletely conquered".
The big problem with incomplete conquest is that none of the territories controlled by MP's (let alone minor countries) outside of their home country had the infrastructure to continue an active war. Aside from the NEI, where substantial oil resources and processing facilities existed, none of the other territories had any significant amount of industrial capacity to supply, let alone rebuild, a sizable military contingent (in WiF terms). The CW is the exception that proves the rule. This unique circumstance is handled by the fact that the CW controls multiple home countries (UK, Canada, India, Australia, and South Africa). In order to fully knock out the CW, one needs to conquer all of those home countries.
The French government had heated discussions regarding whether or not to continue the war against Germany from her colonies, and the arguments against doing were sound. So sound, in fact, that the government opted for an armistice instead. If France, with her large and relatively developed empire could not carry on from her other territories then it's beyond credulity to think a minor country would be capable of doing so (especially without the aid of an allied MP).
In the current game, German control of Iceland and Greenland is little more than a technicality. True, ground and air units can freely enter those territories, but Germany will never be able to keep them in supply once she is at war with the CW. Sending a garrison to Iceland would be a fool's errand. Which means Iceland and Greenland will likely not ever see German units (unless Germany has neutered the RN). Therefore, the US will be able to play US Entry Option 7 at the appropriate time and occupy Iceland and Greenland with US troops, effectively mirroring the historical events in a somewhat altered timeline.
It's not so much that various historical events occurred, but whether explicitly representing them at WiF's scale is appropriate. The Incomplete Conquest aren't justified. They are an unnecessary complication of a game which is already complicated and lead to many outrageously ahistorical situations.
By the way, I think your team play method is a good one. WiF is, like WWII, essentially a two-sided confrontation (DoD makes it a three way affair, but DoD isn't exactly WiF). I've found the best player count for WiF is 5 players (3 Allied and 2 Axis). We would still assign specific MP's to players, but the breakdown usually allowed everyone to stay in the game until the end (even if some players had less to do at times than others). The idea of a team handling all the Allied or Axis responsibilities, though, is a good one, and one that I'm going to suggest at my next multiplayer WiF game. By going with the team approach, responsibilities can be shuffled about as needed. For instance, one player may be given responsibility for a particular theater (ie - the Med, southeast Asia, NW Europe, etc.) instead of strictly by MP. Or a player could be made responsible for such tasks as managing the CW convoy pipelines (including their defense). I see all kinds of possibilities with this approach, which is why I'm going to press for trying it out next time around.
Thanks again for watching, and it's always good to hear your insightful comments!
I am really enjoying this playthrough. Great commentary and learning a lot. Purchased 5th edition and the Final Edition games before getting married ages ago.... Looking into purchasing the ADG Vassal module. What computer settings do I need to use to get the ADG Vassal module working well on Windows 11 computer?
Unfortunately, I'm not a tech guy, so I'm not the one to be able to give you a good answer. I do know that VASSAL will work on machines with Windows 7 or later (so a Windows 11 machine should have no problem). Since none of the VASSAL modules contain any high end graphics, the hardware requirements are usually pretty modest. I would think any mainstream desktop or laptop made in the past 5-6 years should have no problem running the ADG VASSAL module. The VASSAL website itself may have some tech specs listed, or you may try inquiring in a forum like Consimworld. Good luck, and thanks for watching!
I feel like I missed something, but why was Denmark a bloodless war? I'm not familiar with the rules but would Demark have notional units in their country or no?
Good question. Denmark has a single land unit in its force pool, and that unit is marked "Res" on the back, indicating it is a Reserve unit. Reserves are only placed on map when the Major Power (MP) or minor country "calls out the reserves", which occurs during the start of its impulse. The eligible reserve units are placed like reinforcements, except they are placed face down. In the example of Denmark, Germany declares war at the start of the Fascist impulse. The Danish reserve unit is not eligible to be placed on map until the start of the next Democrat impulse (assuming Denmark is aligned with a Democrat MP, if not and it is aligned to the USSR it would come on map at the start of the next Communist impulse). Since German units were able to occupy Copenhagen (the reserve unit is a Copenhagen MIL) during the German impulse, the unit is no longer able to be placed on map (because the MIL's city is controlled by the enemy). The naval (along with any potential air units) are set up on map if the year on the back of their counter is earlier than the current year, if it is the same year then air units arrive the following turn and naval units go into the Construction Pool. So in this instance, Denmark has no air units in its force pool, and the available naval units (including CP's) are setup on map. See rule section 9.7 for calling out reserves.
Notional units are only present for amphibious invasions or paradrops. Even then, the defender can choose to ignore the notional if he wants (the notional unit is considered face down, which gives the attacker a +1, as well as allowing them to make an attack, which if made on the Blitz Land CRT could enable an additional hex advance after combat). The notional unit may cause more trouble than it's worth in some cases, which is why the defender can choose to ignore it. If he does ignore the notional, then no actual attack is considered to have occurred and the attacking units simply enter the hex, where they stop.
If the Germans had used a PARA to make a paradrop on Copenhagen (or any other eligible hex), then the Danish player could have forced them to make an attack against the notional unit. Same thing if the Germans decided to try an amphibious invasion. Notional unit strength would be calculated as normal (the base strength is always 1, modified for various factors like terrain, weather, friendly ZOC's, etc.), and if it is the first impulse of war then a -1 modifier would apply to the strength due to surprise.
The Danish situation is actually something that WiF gets right. Historical Danish resistance lasted 5 hours and the losses to both sides don't rise to the level where they would be visible at WiF's scale. Denmark is one of the few minor countries where a MP can simply walk in and conquer it without having to make any attacks. The Baltic States are another example, but they have no units whatsoever in their force pool, only CP's.
Thank you for the new episode, great stuff! Glad to see Japan finally getting somewhere in China, they really need that new HQ down in the south.
It has been a grind for the Japanese, in no small part due to my bad dice rolling. However, they are now starting to make some decent gains. They absolutely need an HQ in the south if that front is going to be able to achieve anything meaningful. The question is whether it will arrive in the good weather season, or will it arrive only to be sidelined for a couple more turns due to bad weather on that front.
thanks for the turns. You sure roll low with that die a lot. Haven't seen anything higher than a 4 being rolled halfway through -- check the die? I never trust the balance of 10-siders!
Wise policy! But I'm afraid my die rolling isn't much different with other d10's I've used in WiF (and even the d6's way back in WiF 5th edition). In order to avoid any unintentional "favoritism", I've decided to use the green d10 for Democrat rolls (and the weather roll), while using the red d10 for Fascist and Communist rolls. I haven't been keeping track, but I haven't noticed a decided imbalance in results yet.
Still very interesting, I assume that China is not producing, (N-D, J-F) so it can pay for options.
In the case of Denmark, any incomplete conquest was impossible since they were not aligned to any "active" powers, and China can't control them according to DoD rules. So nothing to see there.
I find that there is some logic to incomplete conquest in WiF if you consider the difference between territories and minor countries. I use FE rules which I like better, instead of CE, except for certain adjustments like the extra resource in Sweden, or Italy's trade deal with the US, and minor clarifications of other rules. And I reject most changes made for playability, since my games have always had that extra complexity for historical accuracy, (lots of house rules, or adapted alternate rule ideas like manpower).
My opinion concerning incomplete conquest is simple, colonies, (excludes Baltic states since they have an AP, and NP value in DoD and are minor nations, Albania is a collapsed state that became a colony), that have units, (TER, mostly, but not city volunteers), are minor countries as defined in FE and as such can be the basis of an incomplete conquest while all other colonies are territories, which can't support continued independence. This means that very few nations can have govs in exile, CW, France, Italy, (Ethiopia, (not 1936 start), Somalia, Eritrea and Libya), Netherlands, (NEI, and Dutch Guiana, AiF), Belgium, (B. Congo). I think CE also adds TER for Spain, and Portugal. Other major powers use aligned minors but not conquered ones. Therefor Poland, Denmark, Yugoslavia, and most others are subject to complete conquest. As for territories they become controlled by the major power aligning them, (the minor), or the conqueror if no one wants them, (the minor), again I think that is in the rules somewhere.
If you don't use TER, then there is nothing more to say.
It adds very few units and fits the situation well for the NEI, and stops nations from getting into situations that are beyond historical logistical limits, like Germany being in the Congo. It also makes clear which colonial cities are secondary supply sources, important in Africa for example. When it comes to Italy you can't just ignore East Africa or Libya if you want to conquer them, something that fits well with history. You have to remember the conquest rules as they are will remove many units form the FP so not many good units remain for production, or on map.
On the subject of conquest I think Italy and Japan need special house rules to better reflect historical events.
What Vichy rules are you using?
Thanks for such an enjoyable lets play.
Your assumption regarding China is correct!
One of my main issues with the Incomplete Conquest rules is that the territories outside of the home country simply did not have the industrial infrastructure to continue to support a war effort. It's one thing if the minor country or MP concerned was allied with an MP, in which case the conquered minor or MP would simply have their war effort subsumed into that of their unconquered ally. The French cabinet had some very heated debate about whether or not to continue the war from North Africa and their other colonies, but the arguments against doing so were pretty strong. If a nation like France, with its extensive and relatively well developed empire could not continue to fight on from her overseas territories, then having a minor country do so makes no sense.
Fortunately, this situation is pretty rare, since only a handful of minor countries control territories outside of their home country. Since it is so rare, those unique situations are best handled by special rules. One of the traps Harry fell into when creating Final Edition is that he had a tendency to take a unique (usually one-time occurrence) and write a rule that applied to it universally. This leads to many ahistorical situations in games. So I find it better to revert to the earlier conquest rules, which did not have the concept of incomplete conquest, and simply use a special rule to handle unique situations (namely the NEI). Denmark and Iceland (and Greenland) are a unique situation, but I find that the US Entry Option 7 handles the historical events quite nicely, and without the need to revert to using Incomplete Conquest.
As for Vichy, I will likely be using something very close to what was in WiF 5th edition. If an Axis unit occupies Paris, then its MP may impose a Vichy conquest during the Peace Step. Basically, the French units in Metropolitan France will be moved to Vichy territory. Land and air units in other French territories will remain in those territories. Naval units will be based in various ports. Then a die roll will determine whether each overseas French territory goes Vichy or Free. Vichy will become a neutral minor country, and every Vichy overseas territory will be treated as an independent neutral country (in other words, an invasion of one by the Allies will not affect any of the others). The Axis Mp who installed Vichy can collapse Vichy by moving ground troops into Metropolitan Vichy, which will cause all Vichy overseas territories to become Free French. There are some more details, but that's the gist of it.
The main thing is that Vichy will be pretty much shut down once it is installed and territorial allegiance determined, until such time as France (or the individual overseas territories) is liberated by the Allies or the Axis decide to collapse Vichy. Historically, at the WiF scale, Vichy was pretty much a nonentity, and since there is no French player that needs to be kept busy in the game doing stuff, there's no reason to bother much with the French until France is liberated.
@@thetabletopsedge I can agree that special rules can handle the conquest situation better than the incomplete conquest rule, and then my way of doing it can work well as a house rule. I find this situation important since I play with TER, CX , and the Africa map, so hunting down Vichy and other minor colonies is important for the CW, and Free France. This was also an important part of the aftermath of the fall of France for Churchill. I do think that territories and colonies should go to the aligning major power unless there is none available as is the case in your game. Usually the non democratic powers lack the power projection to take control of these areas, and the Vichy rules take care of the rest.
When considering major powers I think that supply rules can offer a solution, since aligned minor are a secondary source, major power units will lack supply if the homeland is conquered, (except CW). For Italy I found an interesting rule that replicates the conditions that occurred historically. It involves control of East Africa, Libya, Sicily, and one factory in Italy. I have additional rules concerning how Italy changes sides, and provides for limited pro-german forces. I also like to simulate how many Italian troops joined the partisans in the balkans. I also found some interesting surrender conditions for Japan.
When it comes to creating Vichy you have to remember that minors aligned to France are also checked for, (in CE), under the other category. In my game that lead to the complete conquest of Belgium and a German controlled B. Congo, (fortunately for the CW a Free France TER was adjacent, and ended that, but it can't liberate Belgium).
As I watched your game, I though of a nasty trick to play on the Italians, IPO 17, credit card, if timed well it could hurt many Fascist powers.
It is interesting that WiF has so many editions of rules and how you can find answers in discarded rules, or proposed but not implemented ones.
Thanks for taking the time to answer my comments.
Omg another long episode, yay! I was just missing this series, which is such fun. Thanks a lot for uploading it :)
Question: I saw when you showed the rules about elections that the Germans, Japan, CW, and Italy also have to hold at least one election by 1938 if they're not at war with a major power. Did you do this? I don't recall every turn so I might have forgotten, but I'm not sure whether it happened.
Btw I totally think you have a good argument about the ahistoricity of the 'incomplete conquest' rules. My only question there is about naval units - it did historically happen that navies of occupied countries escaped and joined the opposition. E.g. the Royal Dutch Navy in 1940 mostly got out and were effectively added to CW strength.
In any case, please keep em coming! Always a highlight of the week :)
IIRC The election rules for Japan, Italy and Germany are there just in case you run with the optional rules allowing them to become democratic.
@@nikolai877 Correct!
As Nikolai pointed out, elections are only required for Democrat MP's. The Fascist and Communist MP's are never required to hold elections. There is an optional rule that allows MP's to leave the Ideology they begin the game in. If using that rule, then it would be possible for Germany, Italy, or Japan to become Democratic, and then they would need to hold an election if not at war.
With regards to the naval units question, the rules treat naval units in a conquered country as if they were overrun. This means that there is a good chance that the naval units (at least some of them) from conquered countries will continue to fight on with their MP allies. The Danish naval units did not because there was no MP at war with Germany when Denmark was conquered. If, for example, the CW was at war with Germany, then the Danish ships could have rebased to the UK and would have continued to fight as government in exile troops under the CW.
Denmark was a bit of an unusual situation because Germany invaded and there were no MP's at war with Germany. When playing with DoD, it is very possible for a MP to DoW a minor country while not being at war with any other MP. After seeing Germany gobble up Denmark so easily, France and the CW have been trying to ally with, or guarantee, every minor country within reach of Germany to prevent her from repeating her easy conquest. By the summer of 1939, the western Democracies hope to have a situation where they can DoW Germany if Germany attempts to conquer any European minor.
@@thetabletopsedge ahh, so that's only if those MPs are somehow democratic? That makes a *lot* more sense, haha. Fair enough, I was just wondering whether I'd missed something. Not an optional rule I'd play with either anyway.
In terms of your last point, it does again seem to me (just like with Austria) that it's a bit rough how despite all the diplomatic effort expended to ally with and even extend control over a minor power by an MP (Italy with Austria, France with CZ), Germany can just play these annexation options without that being taken into account at all. It says they can't do it when those nations are 'aligned', but that doesn't seem to include the situation of 'being under the MP's position on the political track'.
I wonder if that's quite working as intended? It kinda makes it seem like the German takeover of these countries is an inevitability, which I'd argue it historically wasn't, and also takes away some of the point of having control over diplomatic alliance-building in the DoD phase, no?
@@McCainenl While not necessarily "inevitable", it is most common to see Germany absorb Austria and Czechoslovakia before being at war with France and/or the CW. Interestingly enough, it is Italy who can probably upset the German plans for Anschluss more than anyone else. If you have a game where the Italian player decides to commit heavily to gaining control of Austria, then it is possible that Italy can play her Italian Anschluss option. More often than not, though, the Italian player realizes his best chance at victory is to work with Germany rather than antagonize his German partner.
France can often get the Czech marker stacked in its hex without a lot of effort. The Czechs are naturally inclined to dislike whatever the Germans are doing, and so most of the minor country effects of German options will push the Czechs towards France and the democracies. The way things are setup in DoDIII, if the German is careful (and gets some help from his Italian or Japanese partner) he can pretty much guarantee getting the Demand Sudetenland option passed. In DoDI, it was by no means so easy to do, and was often THE make or break moment in the DoD portion of the game. While it is still very important for the Germans to accomplish before they find themselves at war with the Democrats, DoDIII makes it easier to achieve with proper planning.
Why not move the Chinese 4-1 down since it only moves one hex? Will it get inverted due to weather?
Yes
Yes. Actually, the 4-1 will get inverted any time it moves on the Asia maps, even in good weather. The GAR is also cheaper to rebuild than an INF, so if they are going to leave something behind to delay the Japanese, the Chinese would rather lose a GAR than an INF.
Excellent as always sir! I've never seen the German land forces looking so small! The Japanese didn't think to land around Hainan and open a front there?
Yes! It does take some getting used to. Part of the issue is that the Germans have a lot of reserves, which won't go on map until they're at war with another MP. That will bulk up the Wehrmacht pretty quickly. But it still feels like Germany is way behind.
@@thetabletopsedge I guess all that trade and naval investing cost some for them?
@@nikolai877 Yes. They invested heavily in not only the Kriegsmarine, but also diplomatically with Sweden. And yet all that investment with Sweden hasn't really pad off yet. They could probably get Sweden where they want her, but it will take more time and money, and that's probably time and money they cannot afford at this point.
I hope Italy gets to collect that favor from Germany.
Two turns, yeah!! How long will a good weather turn take with action in both Europe and the Pacific ?
Back in the '90's when a buddy and I were playing WiF a lot, we would often be able to do a M/J or J/A turn in 1942/43 in about 4 hours. I've been thinking a bit about how I'll handle these turns. I'll likely do some stuff off camera, but be sure to show any interesting action. Folks seem to like the detail in this series, so my goal is to keep as much as practical. I'll play it by ear and see just how long the good weather episodes will be. In some cases, I may have to split up a turn over two episodes (although my preference is to play through an entire turn in a single episode, for continuity purposes).
We're probably at least 2 years (in game time) away from truly huge good weather turns, so I've got some time to figure out. Whatever it turns out to be, I do want to keep things as close to the current episodes as I can. Stay tuned!
@The Tabletop's Edge I will be following along for the whole ride. It is like episodic TV. Thanks for the videos, I am sure they take a lot of time to craft.
@@jeffanderson5406 Thanks again for watching! Hope you enjoy the ride!
Sure looks like you said, Germany is far behind, with the caveat that I dont know what annex of Czech part means in form of units
The units will show up in another couple turns, and they are not unsubstantial.
Why have the Chinese oil so close to the front, wouldnt it be better having it much further back?
Good question. Chungking is the "capital" of Nationalist China (in WiF, at least), not that that actually means anything with regards to storing oil. While it appears rather close to the front, Chungking is awfully difficult for the Japanese to reach. The little plateau containing Chungking and Chengtu can often become the Chinese "national redoubt". It contains 3 factories, each which a resource in its hex, and the area is surrounded by mountainous terrain. By having the oil stored there, it insures that the Chinese forces will have access to it. If, for example, the Chinese placed the oil in Urumchi, it would be further away from the Japanese, but liable to be cutoff from the units that would need to consume it if the Japanese pushed inland north of the Chengtu/Chungking region.
If the Japanese do manage to capture Chnugking, then the Chinese are usually finished. Any further resistance is generally cleaned up relatively quickly. So placing the oil in Chungking is about as good as anywhere else (Chengtu is a good option as well).
30:00 Shouldn't some other unit also have been built in Sevilla, to be able to walk around and capture harbors or threaten the resource due east (to force the Republicans to shrink their perimeter to protect it)?
Ok, I see you managed to free up the cavalry unit after some shuffling.
@@nikolai877 Yes, it was a bit clumsy, but the Nationalists are trying to do exactly what you suggested. They also have to make sure the main front east of Madrid remains solid. In the near term, I think the Nationalists will be able to press their advantage in the southwest and cause some grief to the Republicans. They do have to be quick about it, though, as the Republicans will be getting some important reinforcements in a few turns, and ultimately will outnumber the Nationalists (assuming no losses). If the Nationalists can't break the stalemate and turn the tide of war decisively in their favor by the coming summer, it may mean they cannot win the war without a sizable Fascist commitment of support (meaning actual units, not just BP's). We'll see what happens.
Love this game but too expensive. Go get it.
for me the problem is space - I live in an apartment and just do not have the physical space to cover with several giant maps, loads of chits and so forth. Which is a shame as DoD + WiF seems really fun, even solo.
@@McCainenl Have you looked into the VASSAL module for WiFCE that ADG has available on their website? It is a nice module that would allow you to play without needing anymore space than what your computer requires.
@@thetabletopsedge I have the Matrix Games world in Flames PC game.
Shame is that the supply system is still very erratic. Been like that since release. Often the Commonwealth has fewer build points than Japan.
@@thetabletopsedge yes, I bought the module off them in fact. But it doesn't (as far as I can tell) have any support for Days of Decision, unfortunately, and I'm really enjoying that aspect too.
@@ezzler I, too, purchased MWiF. I had been following it since it was CWiF as far back at least as 1998. I had some hope when Matrix took over that the game would finally see the light of day. Unfortunately, it appears they had a single developer working on the project so it not only took years but the "finished" product is the worst digital adaptation of any game I've ever seen.
Instead of starting from scratch with current software capabilities, they simply built upon what had been done previously as CWiF. I don't have words to express my displeasure with the design decisions made by Matrix. The graphics are horrific, but the user interface is the most clumsy attempt at a UI I've ever seen (and my first computer games were played on a TRS-80 back in 1981). WiF is a game where units are frequently inverted, but instead of creating counters with two sides, the original CWiF designer decided to use a series of colored balls atop the unit counters to denote various types of information (including a unit that had been turned face down). I might be able to excuse the original programmer, since he was undertaking what was, I believe, a passion project and dealing with whatever cheap software was available in the mid-to-late 1990's. But there is zero excuse for Matrix using the same software 20 years later.
People were creating VASSAL modules that not only looked better but had a UI that was actually usable years before Matrix finally released MWiF. I'm stunned a company would release something in such a state. The ONLY good thing that came of MWiF was the set of physical maps portraying the entire globe at European scale (which I purchased out of curiosity, since to actually play with them is impossible).
Today I would recommend anyone interested in a digital copy of WiF to get the official WiFCE VASSAL module from the ADG website (or even one of the older, free VASSAL modules from the VASSAL website) than to buy the Matrix disaster.
For example Germany can send a unit to Spain as a favour for Italy it would help Nationalists cause Republicans are gonna get more units than Nationalists at the end
Also I hope that future episodes will come out much much sooner
True!
@@czujnywilczek6832 Yes. The next one will definitely come out much quicker.
First to watch thanks
The next episode won't take as long to upload, I promise!