The original AH Third Reich- still worth playing?

[Ridcully70]

I've been meaning to try this game (solitaire, trying to convince others to play it would be pointless) for a long time. I remember this back in the 70s as a kind of true hardcore wargame that my older brothers played. I even remember going into a games store in the early 80s as a 13 year old and taking it off the shelf to the checkout counter. The store owner looked aghast and tried to convince me that it was much too complicated for me, so I bought another game instead.

So the game has some nostalgia value and I would be interested playing, but the fact is that gaming has moved on since the 1970s. Modern games tend to have more attractive art and maps, more streamlined rules that don't sacrifice depth, and are just generally more refined. Today we have excellent hardcore boardgames like Absolute Victory, Empire Of The Sun, Fall Of The Third Reich (the Compass Games version) etc. So is Third Reich a true classic, or more of an ancient relic best reserved for a boardgaming museum?

Of course the best answer would be to simply try for myself and find out, but that type of big grand strategy game takes a long time to learn, and to play.

[Blond_Knight]

The thing I remember was there were so many limited duration rules to remember. Their purpose was to try to shape the game into a reasonable facsimile of the war but to me it was just a cluster.

[jwolf]

In my opinion this game has stood the test of time. The comparatively primitive art or maps have little or nothing to do with the playability or value of the game. I believe this game succeeded very well in its stated goals, which were to get players to re-create the great campaigns of the European war.

[TheeWarLord]

Wow, there are those that still remember Avalon Hill games, and don't forget the mag The General. I actually played that game-TR, the Bulge, Africa Korps,Russian Campaign, ect. I still have my games, but are boxed away,haven't played in decades. Last big board game bought was The World in Flames series. Good memories. Why not play, better yet find a local player and game both comp and board games, good luck!

[Rosseau]

I would recommend Matrix World in Flames. I paid $80, but they have sales. Even playing "against myself" and ignoring the naval battles (for my own sanity), the Eastern Front land campaign was best I ever experienced. And the manuals are beautiful.

[warspite1]

I would be interested to hear from those who played Third Reich and Advanced Third Reich to understand what changed. I never played the latter - which gets rave reviews on these forums, but did play the original which I have to say was awful - absolutely awful. So what did they do to the game that made it seemingly so good?

[Ridcully70]

I did make some tentative attempts to play the 1995 computer of Third Reich. Printed off the 2 manuals and read them, and my impression was there were a lot of rules designed purely to make the game stick to the historical path. They weren't rules that added any depth of play, quite the opposite, they narrowed the players options down

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

I would be interested to hear from those who played Third Reich and Advanced Third Reich to understand what changed. I never played the latter - which gets rave reviews on these forums, but did play the original which I have to say was awful - absolutely awful. So what did they do to the game that made it seemingly so good?

I agree. Third Reich was awful. So what does make Advanced Third Reich such an improvement?

[MrsWargamer]

I played a lot of Third Reich (the board game) and with A3R there were a number of subtle changes that made a difference. Some was just correcting a gamey situation. For instance, finite counters for the Minors. The trick was to declare war on the correct minors in a specific sequence such that the country you attack last had no counters and as a result was what it was, a cake walk. Gamey and stupid of course. In A3R they corrected that nonsense and produced a product where every nation had its own counter force pool.

Now a PC version will not suffer that effect.

Some changes were to actual game mechanics.

The board game evolved through A3R into A3R and Rising Sun which was made to accommodate the peculiarities of the Pacific. Then it became World at War. the edition had merged A3Rs European setting with Rising Sun's Pacific setting. Some compromises had to be made the blend the two. Some liked the change and some did not. You have to seriously want a board game though in order to drop 200+ after tax and shipping for a board game from 2003.

I'm probably an A3R fan who isn't as interested in A World at War even at the more common board game price tag of under 100 bucks. It's just a paper map (two panels for A3R) and counter sheets (not that many really) and manuals and charts. A3R isn't really a difficult product to manufacture, it's a difficult game to win though.

I've played the Third Reich PC software. I'll be blunt, there is no shortage of PC games out there, but there is a shortage of time in my day.
I won't be using any or my time to play Third Reich PC. Not when I can actually play the A3R board game easier.

[Dabo]

Main differences between 3R and A3R:
- Limited offensives are possible (ie: you can make one or more attacks spending less than 15 BRPs and still roll for an attrition attack)
- Overruns are possible (if you attack with 6-1 odds the enemy is eliminated and you can still carry on an attack) that means that 2 lines defences aren’t impenetrable anymore.
- In defence combat factors aren’t always doubled anymore (for example infantry in the exploitation phase)
- Completely redesigned strategic warfare
- Completely redesigned diplomacy
- US entry isn’t fixed but depends on a table (The more success the Axis has the earlier the US enters the war)
- Strategic redeployment by sea can be intercepted
- Oil is a factor.
- Pro-rated BRP gains
- On spring turns only limited offensives are allowed on the Eastern Front (mud) on winter turns the Axis suffers severe limitations (at least at the beginning)
That’s what I can recall, anyway I haven’t played A3R for 20 years because its latest incarnation called A World at War is a much better game (http://www.aworldatwar.org/ GMT is the publisher. It has a nice free software companion called Warplanner that is of great help in PBEM games). The designer is Bruce Harper, the father of aTR and Empire of the rising sun (the pacific war expansion). If I can recall, Matrix picked it up for a PC conversion about 10 years ago but it all came to nothing, it would have probably been harder than World in flames.
This new version (there’s also has a prequel called The gathering storm) is, the best WWII strategic game I’ve ever played.
It combines the European and Pacific theatres of operation in a single game (although it’s possible to play only the European, pacific north African campaigns), it adds research, production, mobilization a completely new naval and air system and lots of other things. Rules are really, but I mean really, long, but they’re very clear and leave next to nothing to interpretation and anyway you could simply drop a message to the designer on the yahoo group (I think it’s over 100,000 posts now) and have him clarify the rules.
I own the 1st print of game but it's still unpunctured, since I've only had PBEM games (setting up the two maps, all the tables and aids requires too much real estate and time). You can pretty much PBEM with Warplanner for free if you don’t feel like spending 180 US$ (rules, tables, aids are freely available)

[Capitaine]

Third Reich is still one of the better WWII strategic games around. Unfettered by so much newthink, it portrayed the conflict more genuinely. Better than a lot of the crap that passes as historical fare these days. It let you pursue true strategies that have more validity than some of more complex games out there. I would highly recommend it as a starting point for the genre, as you'll find yourself comparing everything else to its elegance.

[Crossroads]

Wow, Third Reich, I believe it was my second boardgame, version 3 back in 1983 I believe. I really liked it at the time. Never tried A3R rules, so thanks for the details above. [:)]

[pzgndr]

ORIGINAL: warspite1
I would be interested to hear from those who played Third Reich and Advanced Third Reich to understand what changed. I never played the latter - which gets rave reviews on these forums, but did play the original which I have to say was awful - absolutely awful. So what did they do to the game that made it seemingly so good?

Basically, there were some useful improvements to the air and naval combat systems and the addition of a "limited offensive" option that allowed players to select attrition and pay less than 15 BRPs for selected attacks. There were some other research and diplomacy additions also, but the core game stayed intact. Russia also got Industrial Centers (ICs) to improve its economic model.

Overall, I enjoyed playing 3R/A3R because, despite its plethora of rules to cover everything for WWII ETO, it was an easy game to play and the economics modeled the ebb and flow of the war pretty well. This allowed [experienced] players to focus on grand strategy decisions rather than game mechanics. IMHO, it was a good game. I think A3R got too complicated with the research/diplomacy rules, and the subsequent A World At War versions even moreso. I never played WiF the boardgame but I've got MWiF, patiently waiting for the ETO scenario.

Anyways, I enjoyed 3R/A3R so much that I developed the A3R mod for Strategic Command. FWIW, I'd really like to see a remake of the Avalon Hill Third Reich PC game updated to Windows10 with bug fixes and AI improvements. That would be great. [8D]

[Michael T]

Advanced Third Reich is a much better game than the original, well worth playing multiple times. But forget the GMT super advanced 3R (World at War). It's crazy complex.