WiF vs Advanced Third Reich

[Cheesehead]

I've played both games and I can't imagine why anyone still prefers A3R over WiF. I know a guy who loves A3R yet wants nothing to do with WiF. I understand that space may be an issue for some, but is there anyone that could give me insight into why A3R should even be in the same conversation?

[coregames]

Because WiF takes 100+ hours to play, Third Reich in any form would certainly be a smaller time commitment. Still, the unified war on a global scale with integrated combined arms is very rewarding, and the mechanics are very innovative in WiF, so I agree. For me there is no comparison.
I only played Third Reich in the early-mid '80s... how much different is the advanced version?
The only WWII board games that come close to what WiF achieves are, in my opinion, the Europa series. Drag Nach Osten was the first "monster game" I ever heard of.

[MButtazoni]

I think GMT has done a poor job of marketing because A3R and ERS have been superseded by Bruce Harper's A World at War. A3R is an archaic design from 20 years ago, why would we compare A3R to WiF ?

I played WiF to death (up to the 6th Edition) and now, as far as strategic boardgames go, i play A World at War almost exclusively.

You can see more of A Word at War at http://aworldatwar.com

[Mziln]

ORIGINAL: coregames
The only WWII board games that come close to what WiF achieves are, in my opinion, the Europa series. Drag Nach Osten was the first "monster game" I ever heard of.

Yup, good old DNO to bad it was never finished.

I agree WiF is in a class of its own with Sceanario Options, Setup Options, Political Options, Player Production, Combined Arms, Weather, and etc.

[coregames]

ORIGINAL: Mziln


Yup, good old DNO to bad it was never finished.

One of our WiF group played Fire in the East, which was the first in the Europa series, and was based on DNO... The lack of an integrated world-wide super-game like what Europa aspired to be was brilliantly recognised by Rowland and Pinder at the right time. If there was a "Golden Age" of boardgaming, surely WiF had its origin towards towards the end of it.

That's unfortunate for me and I'm sure others who love WiF and over-the-board gaming experiences. Scooting a mouse just isn't the same as moving pieces or counters. For this reason, my biggest hope for MWiF is that the experience gives the feeling of a board game, such as the idea of a pivot view or alternate viewing angle of the map for comparing stacks of counters and even the dice. To me, WiF must remain a boardgame-like experience. If a game takes unique advantage of the computer's strengths to cover global WWII on a similar scale, it's still not quite WiF, just as WiF is not quite Europa completed.

[coregames]

ORIGINAL: MButtazoni

I played WiF to death (up to the 6th Edition) and now, as far as strategic boardgames go, i play A World at War almost exclusively.

I've looked at the website for AWAW and the rules are pretty impressive... about how long does a global war scenario take? If it's sufficiently fast I can see how it might be a fun play.

I see that AWAW still resembles the Third Reich in its sequence; WiF has the impulse system, which is probably the most innovative aspect of it. That makes weather much more realistic, gives an extra element of unpredictability (kind of like war), and provides a turn of WiF it's own ebb and flow dynamic. Matrix has to get that dynamic somehow, regardless of how the sequence looks after the dust settles.