Beta testers 3R?

[HardRock]

Ok. Since it's delayed another couple weeks I'll spoil my own surprise.

Are there any *serious* 3R players that were also beta testers?

If so, how do you rate WAW with 3R (either the boardgame or computer PBEM,not AI) on a 1-10 scale (10 highest) as far as it being a *competitive* two (or more) player game with chess like moves and real strategic thought behind the moves..as opposed to counter pushing.

Obviously they're not the same games and I'm not asking for side by side comparisons..other than..is the *beef* the same:)

[MButtazoni]

first off the game wasn't delayed "another couple weeks"

second i played 3R and still play the latest incarnation (A World at War, not to be confused with GGWAW) and there is as much detail if not more than the original Third Reich. It's a different kind of detail the focus for GGWAW is on Logistics, Research, and Production. Yes there is the combat aspect of GGWAW, but if you get the other 3 wrong, combat won't matter.

[HardRock]

yeah it was delayed a couple weeks.... by the retail stores...is what I meant,not the publisher. Once the word "gone gold" went out you'd hope the retail stores would have changed their release dates but they stuck with the old 3/16 and still do at this late date!! But alas..retail release dates is all phoney.

So in this game when played by two good players do you get the feeling when playing that if you make a mistake or leave a "hole" you will pay for it as in 3R?

[Barthheart]

ORIGINAL: HardRock

...So in this game when played by two good players do you get the feeling when playing that if you make a mistake or leave a "hole" you will pay for it as in 3R?

Just ask Paul V. what happens if you leave a "hole" in the things MButtazoni mentioned!! [:D]



(Sorry Paul, couldn't resist [:D])

[Paul Vebber]

Are there any *serious* 3R players that were also beta testers?

FIrst Edition 3R was teh first wargame I ever played. IT was a big choice at Toys R Us between Luftwaffe, Richtofen'War, Third Reich and France 1940 if i remember correctly. Each was 6.95 in teh "bookcase sleave box".

3R seemed to be the grandest in scope and I had just finsihed a unit on WWII in 7th grade social studies and was stoked.

I've played each incarnation of the original, "Advanced" and now BHaWaW (Bruce Harpers A World at War so as not to confuse it with GGWaW...).

The game mechanics are of course completely different. BHaWaW has greater depth of "character" - every aspect of the war and every possible ETO option has been evolved over the 20+years from the original. GGWaW is much more abstract in presentation, and leaves many of the intricases of politics and possible events out of it to concentrate on a clean, elegent game system.

Remarkably, the train of thought that I follwo to make decisions in GGWaW is very similar to how I approached the 3R lineage - in "campaign terms" - teh difference is, in 3R I had to fret andscrutinize and "dig into the details" of taking a "region" - not jsut in terms of "how many air, armor, infantry, shore bmbardment and air to I need to commit to this campaign - but specifially how to "push the counters" to pull it off. Planning and execution were if anything,, tipped a bit toward execution. A player who had a kanck for "defending the right hex grain" - or exploiting it - could acomplish things withfewer resources than or with less planning than I and still "win".

GGWaW rewards planning above all else. It basically takes teh "counter pushing away" - you commit how many units of what types to teh battle and the game system "sims" in computer football analogy the counter ppushing. Youdecide in effect thesequencing of "echelons of attack" (do you attack in one big push, or open with an air bombardment and follow it up with two waves of ground forces? or put all my inf in first and then hope to "exploit" though into a seconf area? The force allocation decisions is very similar to force allocation in 3R, but it is left to the dice to decide teh outcome - not "who is the better counter pusher".

The simple but far from "simplistic" logistics model in GGWaW is where it shines compared to BHaWaW. The use of a combination of "standard supply lines" and "oil counters' is probably "as good as you can resonble get" for a board game as a balance between "full blown" logistics management and what is playbale.

GGWaW uses the computer's strength at displaying info and bookeeping, to allow the creation and distribution of suppiles to be done extremely easily, while still forcing the players to plan their logistics needs several turns ahead if they are going to keep all their options open. Once you get used to it, I think playing with advanced supply is teh only way to go. At first I thought I would always play with auto supply, but once you get used to moving supply around, I am beginning to play more with it off as it can gum up the works taking stuff from accross transport links you don't want to "waste".

Poor oil management can keep you from winning the game in BHaWaW -one of those things that "gets in the way" and complicates teh counter pushing - poor supply management in GGWaW will DOG you...and is the fastest way to LOSE. Its a razors edge to walk - balancing between buying units, and buy supplies to fight those units. After several dozen games now, I just feel I'm STARTING to get the ability to "eyeball" it. I'm finding that the standard "operational planning" techniques that the War College teaches to look at potential courses of action, estimate their logisitical cost and weigh the risk is very useful (and vice versa, the game is potentially an excellent tool to teach the basics of that sort of planning technique...)

GGWaW is not a "repalcemetn" for a game like BHaWaW - somtimes you WANT to push counters and win a campaign, not becasue the "dice rolled well" but becasue you pulled off a brilliant set of supporting and exploitive moves, sequencing your batles and exploits just right to shatter open a line and pour through.

Watching the "little tin soldiers" exchange fire in GGWaW can be neat for key battles, but you quickly "click out of it" unless you have a LOT riding on it - and go to scroll down the detailed combat report to see what happened.

It just isn't like counter pushing when you want to counter push...

I'm really hopng a text output of that is added [&o] pretty please Joel [&o]

On the other hand, the beauty of GGWaW is that becasue you don't have to counter push, you can explore a strategy and component courses of action in one night! in a nutshell, you get MORE (with the detaield logistics) of the feeling of being in Ike's shoes managing a theater and allocating forces to battles, rather than being Guderian orchestrating a complex thrust, parry and exploit to cleave a gapping wound in the lines toward Moscow.

WHne you want to be Ike, or von Runstadt, or Tojo - you get "grand scope strateegy" decision making you saw in 3R (and then some) without the need to actually "do the deed youself" - teh sequencing of how you set a battle in motion and teh order you execute attacks requires some good risk assessmnet...but the %chances of scussess and loss estimates are given to you like a good General Staff should, and you just have to weigh the odds and takes your chance!

The other thing that mimics teh 3R lineage games, is the way teh Axis feels like George Jetson on teh treadmill - from GO you have to have your "game plan" laid out pretty much for teh first two years of the war. pretty much "all must go according to plan" for the Axis to have a chance. They generally start 42 with the feeling - "I'm this close" to pulling this off - and usually by the end of 42, Its apparent it will be a fight to conatin an Axis that has "busted out" or Axis strategy starts to shift to "holding out to the end of 46".

this mirrors my experience with 3R - with distinct "opening - middle and end game" strategies. The "opening" is a finely tuned set of moves and battles for the Germans in particulr (not so much for the Japanese - mucking around too much in China can be a two eged sworrd) - eventually by teh end of 41 the "opening script" has run itself out and the creative problem solving phase - trying desperately to keep teh initiative in Europe, and noe executing teh Japanese "script" to blow out into the Southern Resource area and stoke teh indutrial fires of Matsushita and Mitsubishi, languishing for resources teh opening of the game.

anyway I'v droned on too long - from a 20+ year 3R seies player - GGWaW doesn't scratch the itch to push counters and demostrate your prowess in that department, but when you don't have the time or inclination to "get down in the weeds" I find myself thinking about the game in a similar - and in my opinion deeper and better matched to the grand scope of the game - decision making process.

[Paul Vebber]

Oh, and important safety tips for WA.

1. The risk to not doing reearch in ASW as soon as you can for your light fleets and CV air IS NOT WORTH IT.

Trust me on this one...[:-][:o][:@]

2. After you move a fleet forward to attack, always make sure you take a transport and can get at least 1 supply point to "float out there" with your fleet incase, say you move into the med and the Jerries U-boats cut the supplylink back out...leaving you to be cut to ribbons! DON'T TRUST AUTO SUPPLY to supply your fleets...

3. IF you are moving your fleet forward with an eye to attack the next turn, TAKE TWO transports and a BUTTLOAD of supply with you!

[Becket]

Step away from the emoticons, Paul.

[HardRock]

Thanks for the reply Paul.
Yes the booksleeve games. I got mine in Jordan Marsh. First France 40 (I really liked that one), Luffwatte, and of course 3R. I never went beyond the original 3R (too many rules to read which I hated). Also I enjoyed the simplistic but chess like moves in the original.Checkmate double move Berlin:)

I've played 3RPC (not the AI) PBEM with a god program called 3R gold that gets around all the bugs. It got down to one measley BRP being the difference of victory or not:)

I like what I hear from you on WAW. The strategic depth and planning. I can do without pushing the counters. 3R I still love but making sure you don't leave that one hole is tedious against a good player...hence 10 day turns.

A long drought on a strategic WW2 game.....looks like rain after all:)