Originally posted by Les the Sarge 9-1 Yep there are a lot of gamers out there insisting on more "detail" for grand strategy, the problem being I think they don't understand what grand strategy truely is.
It isn't minutae and certainly doesn't revolve around excessive details.
It's like you say, like chess, or even a fencing match. Leave yourself open and poof you lose yet again. No excessive detail fiddling to hide your error.
You need to have a plan and actually plan it ahead. I think that's why A3R has yet to be copied.
Those 4 only turns a year mean your moves better be good, because you can't just say "oh that one attack wasn't any good, but I can recover".
That's one thing I like about PC Third Reich: there isn't a lot of micro-management, but there is a delicate balancing act. If you make the wrong moves, get bogged down, lose the initiative, fail to maintain your BRP advantage, and/or lose sight of the calender, then you are in a whole world of hurt. . .
I dug up an article about strategy for the PC version of Third Reich. It was written some time ago for a strategy game site (the name escapes at the moment). I thought all you enterprising Field Marshals would enjoy the read.
Third Reich
So many countries...so little time
Avalon Hill by Mark McIntosh
Third Reich is a game of World War II grand strategy covering the European and Mediterranean theaters of operations. As with its popular board game "ancestor," many key game design considerations have been recreated in the PC version. For those of you who have been playing the board game version for a number of years, you may want to just tear open the box and jump right in. The rest of you may need a primer on what this game is all about.
Lightning Warfare
This was a new war with new technologies and, more importantly, new ideas on how to use them. The game design demonstrates the influence of airpower and armored mobility by simulating the new art of mobile warfare known as blitzkrieg. In combination with paratroops, the Breakthrough & Exploitation game feature models this doctrine with interesting ease.
Grand Strategy 101
Paraphrasing Liddell Hart, the first stage of forming a grand strategy is the coordination of all war related activity. Military actions, economic pressure, diplomacy, and propaganda all fall under the umbrella of grand strategy. However, only the instruments of military action and economic pressure are included with the game design. To obtain the end-goal of victory, a delicate symmetry between the two must be successfully achieved and maintained.
Economic strength fuels military operations, and large-scale military victories will, in turn, create a stronger economy by adding new factories, land and resources to the industrial base. In game terms, the prerequisite for victory will be economic growth–to be accomplished through the saving and the "grabbing" of Basic Resource Points (BRPs). BRPs are the currency of the game. It is the unit of measure and exchange that models a country's ability to wage war.
Saving involves reinvesting in the economy in order to increase a major country's BRP "base." This can be achieved by carrying forward a cache of unspent BRPs into a new year (except 1940). The tactic of granting BRPs between major allied countries is one way of insuring the most bang for your economic buck (as long as the nation receiving the grant has the higher growth-rate factor).
Military conquest provides the other means for increasing total BRPs, which are awarded every Year Start Sequence (YSS) based on the BRP values assigned to each country under your heel. Unlike your base, these BRPs come and go with the tides of military fortune. Offsetting this income, you must spend BRPs for the troops, the declarations of war, and the offensives that will allow you to fulfill your dreams of European domination or common defense.
If not an inherent part of any grand strategy, the act of subjugating neighboring countries should be evaluated in terms of their net BRP return. In other words, the total BRPs awarded over the remaining game YSS cycles, minus the total BRPs spent in conquest.
Strategic Warfare (SW) is a unique opportunity to strike directly at an opponent's economy. SW builds, performed consistently and knowledgeably, are an important component of economic pressure. Utilize the full ten percent of the total BRPs allowed for this effort. Watch opponent BRP levels (USA and Britain vs Germany) to help determine the proper SW build numbers and types.
Guarding the Strategic Initiative
In this turn-based game, the player who goes first is the side with the largest number of BRPs at the start of a turn. Going first allows that player to set the strategic tone, forcing the second player to react to any aggressive moves. This initiative feature of game play can be manipulated to create a double-turn, allowing one side to take two sequential turns before the opponent can respond.
Monitoring opponent BRP spending, as well as your own, will assure the status quo and avoid this nail-biting anomaly. As a precaution, the player going first may have to refrain from spending below the second player's current BRP level in order to maintain the initiative. On the other hand, against an opponent who can not take full military advantage of an initiative change, allowing the turn flip-flop may yield surprising benefits–but only if you are in a better strategic position to follow through.
In any case, a BRP windfall, such as when America enters the war and adds its BRPs to the Allied totals, or even when Russia joins the Allies in 1941, may cause an unavoidable change in initiative. As compensation, going second does allow a player to evaluate how much to spend based upon the first player's actions, presenting a new opportunity to take the initiative once more.
Strategy 102
On a lower level, strategy is the planning and execution of the steps necessary to bring about a favorable decision. Stonewall Jackson's strategic philosophy was to "mystify, mislead and surprise." Paraphrasing Liddell Hart again: by exploiting the elements of movement and surprise, a commander can gain a battlefield decision of the most inexpensive and highly prized nature, one without any serious fighting. By striking the weakest point and quickly advancing along the lines of least resistance, a paralyzing encirclement can be achieved. The final step in the process is the simple tactic of defending what has been gained.
In the campaign scenario, the Axis player too, must formulate an aggressive time table for military conquest. With seasonal 3-month turns speeding by, there will be little margin for error as precise strategic execution must overcome the element of chance found in Third Reich's combat process. Since conquered BRPs are only awarded in the YSS, the Axis player must determine, several turns in advance, the forces and deployment required to reap the economic harvest they so desperately need early in the game. To win a decisive victory, the Axis must knock 3 major Allied countries out of the war. With American entry occurring on the Spring 1942 turn, France and Britain may have to be subdued quickly, with Russia becoming the final fatality.
For the Allies, the early strategy is somewhat easier but no less daunting. They must throw the Axis time table off schedule by stubbornly resisting the onslaught and inflicting costly casualties, opposing the Axis expansion at every opportunity. Key to the Allied strategy is the protracted survival of France in the West and economic support of Russia in the East. Only Britain is in the position to do something about both, until America enters the war. Britain is also the only major country that can give Italian ambitions in the "Med" a serious reversal, forcing Germany to divert precious troops and air assets to shore-up Italian offensive operations or to protect Italian soil.
Rolling the Dice
Beware of the 2-1 odds attack! There is a small, yet devastating, chance an Attacker Eliminated result could occur. In addition, if you must perform a low odds attack (1-1 or 2-1), consider including an extra unit in the attacking force to occupy the abandoned hex in case an Exchange (EX) result rears its ugly head. Remember, the last side to occupy or march through a hex is the owner! Breakthrough & Exploitation rules also require a surviving attacker (ground unit) to occupy the defender's hex, otherwise your tanks will be sitting this "offensive season" in the rear.
Even so, the luxury of attacking at 3-1 odds or higher will not always be possible. If exploitation is not necessary, then inexpensive infantry in combination with air power can work in a pinch. Your armored units are best employed in exploitation, to cutoff enemy supply lines. In defensive positions, armor's special zone-of-control (ZOC) can effectively impede enemy exploitation behind your own lines. It is better not to risk this expensive asset in front door assaults, other than to create a breakthrough or when the direct approach is the only other choice.
Air units have an important threat/counter-threat quality that may not require their actual combat employment. Just being in the vicinity to intercept or provide defensive air support may be enough to deter enemy offensive aspirations. If there will be no beneficial combat odds adjustment, resist the tendency to fully engage airpower unless you have the BRP strength to quickly rebuild losses.
For you Veteran Players
For those of you who developed strategies around Variant Counters and Intelligence Spending, you can forget about using them here. Sadly, for whatever reason, the PC version has "not implemented" them. Both elements made for interesting what-if historical variations that added another dimension to overall planning considerations. While removing these concepts from play will make developing a grand strategy less complex, it also makes the game less interesting. (Less is still less.) Bridgehead placements have also been modified substantially. They only remain in place if units continue to draw supply from them or enemy units are with five hexes; otherwise, they disappear.
Despite the differences, Third Reich preserves the grand strategic concept of overall war effort coordination while simulating the strong military focus needed for strategic execution. Transitioning your thoughts between these two levels of strategy will require some effort, as the tendency is to fight battles without considering the total strategic implications. Finally, the key fundamental concept is a strong war-time economy, or BRP strength, and the intuitive talent to convert that strength into battlefield advantages consistently and effectively throughout the game.
Originally posted by NefariousKoel Speaking of old AH/VG games. Has anyone ran 5th Fleet in win2k/XP? I'm gonna give it a swing, but IIRC I didn't have much luck with it in win98.
I was able to get 5th fleet to run on Win98. Here's a site that has some good installations tips for Win98 and XP:
Hope you're able to get it running. It took a fair amount of tinkering before I was able to get it to run, but it was well worth it. Its a great game. Has a great boardgame feel to it.
Hmmm been my experience, if it won't run in 98, then it sure isn't likely to run in anything after 98.
You see XP makes some older games run in XP by pulling a trick and "pretending" to be 98 (or even 95). But it has been my conclusion, anything that doesn't like 98, is also likely to be way to darn annoying to play at all.
I LIKE that my life bothers them,
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.
Hmm would not bother me a bit seeing Matrix guide my number two game's future at all actually.
Not sure Matrix could do anything special for Third Reich though.
It would be nice to have a better discussion on it though.
Right now TOAW has a good following at Warfare HQ though.
I suppose it just depends more on where TOAW might go in the future, and whether Matrix already has conflicting interests with Battlefields (which is similar in concept).
It might be more like asking Matrix to buy someone else's game when the game is still be supported well elsewhere.
I LIKE that my life bothers them,
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.
Originally posted by Les the Sarge 9-1 TOAW at Matrix.....?
Hmm would not bother me a bit seeing Matrix guide my number two game's future at all actually.
Not sure Matrix could do anything special for Third Reich though.
It would be nice to have a better discussion on it though.
Right now TOAW has a good following at Warfare HQ though.
I suppose it just depends more on where TOAW might go in the future, and whether Matrix already has conflicting interests with Battlefields (which is similar in concept).
It might be more like asking Matrix to buy someone else's game when the game is still be supported well elsewhere.
Les: Right now a person cannot buy TOAW: COW. Take2 may or may not continue to support this game. But I think many people would agree that there is still quite a bit that can be done for this game.
Norm has mentioned that he may be interested in doing another patch for the game. Still nothing definite.
It would be interesting to see how much it would take to get the rights for this game. It is a classic, and would be a shame to see it fall by the wayside. All the 20 year old RTS players today will need something meaty to play when they're in their '30s and '40s hehe
I think Matrix is headed to be the standard-bearer for the traditional (and improved) wargames. Their work on Steel Panthers, PacWar, War in Russia, etc is testimony to this commitment.
Traditional type wargames such as UV, WiTP, etc is an out-growth of this wargame "type".
It would just be a shame to see TOAW fall by the wayside. . .
Originally posted by NefariousKoel Speaking of old AH/VG games. Has anyone ran 5th Fleet in win2k/XP? I'm gonna give it a swing, but IIRC I didn't have much luck with it in win98.
I tried it once and it did run but i remember having some trouble at various points in the game.. also sound didnt work no matter what.
End result I sold it on ebay for $50...
If no one else tackles it before-hand..its on a short list of games Id like to re-do myself. There is of course lots of material for the series between all the games that were put out. Its too big a task for one person and Im not sure what the current fan base is to help. It would be cool to combine a few of them into one though obviously a big undertaking for whoever does it... Someone might do it for vassal, cyberboard or some other system. Might even already have been done.. really havent looked into it..(Not a vassal or cyberboard fan myself)..
First I have to finish my current project though...
Originally posted by Veldor I tried it once and it did run but i remember having some trouble at various points in the game.. also sound didnt work no matter what.
End result I sold it on ebay for $50...
If no one else tackles it before-hand..its on a short list of games Id like to re-do myself. There is of course lots of material for the series between all the games that were put out. Its too big a task for one person and Im not sure what the current fan base is to help. It would be cool to combine a few of them into one though obviously a big undertaking for whoever does it... Someone might do it for vassal, cyberboard or some other system. Might even already have been done.. really havent looked into it..(Not a vassal or cyberboard fan myself)..
First I have to finish my current project though...
It's not a huge loss for me as I still own 2nd and 6th Fleet. They were some of the funnest tabletops I'd played against an opponent and even though it's been about 2 years since I last played, a buddy of mine still asks me about when our next bout will be.
Still, it would be nice to play solo on the PC occasionally.
Originally posted by Les the Sarge 9-1 Matrix has filled a big void for me where wargaming is concerned.
Thanks to them I am online and in the loop.
But in fairness, I will say Battlefront is doing our hobby a big favour supporting some games of similar qualities as well.
Still, that is only two sites I know of, that are big in the producing end of things.
I tried the Combat Mission demo. It was fun and interesting, but a bit too tactical for me. Plus, the 3D camera motion can be a bit unsettling, as it is easy to get motion sickness. . .
It's great to see that their games are being supported.
Originally posted by Veldor I tried it once and it did run but i remember having some trouble at various points in the game.. also sound didnt work no matter what.
End result I sold it on ebay for $50...
If no one else tackles it before-hand..its on a short list of games Id like to re-do myself. There is of course lots of material for the series between all the games that were put out. Its too big a task for one person and Im not sure what the current fan base is to help. It would be cool to combine a few of them into one though obviously a big undertaking for whoever does it... Someone might do it for vassal, cyberboard or some other system. Might even already have been done.. really havent looked into it..(Not a vassal or cyberboard fan myself)..
First I have to finish my current project though...
What type of software develpment do you do?
Are there any other wargames you would like to re-do?
Originally posted by Joe 98 I never played TOAW and I only recently discoverd the game! I have played Avalon Hill's World at War series and it is very similair to TOAW.
But the best news is that Matrix is publishing Battlefields! which I hope to be a succesor to both games.
Originally posted by Von Rom What type of software develpment do you do?
Are there any other wargames you would like to re-do?
Microsoft Microsoft Microsoft...
Delphi is going to have the same problem that other server products have when compared to 2000 Server and so on.
With the .NET framework soon (say a year or two) to be the only one available moving forward.. Microsoft has a HUGE headstart from the competition... so as Bill Gates would say (or maybe not say).. Its really not relevant what is or isnt better TODAY.. its relevant what will be better tommorrow. By the time you are ready to deliver your product.
So I shy away from things like Delphi and develop in Visual Studio .NET Edition specifically C++ .NET (Though I don't write to the .NET framework) In the non game space MS SQL Server rules supreme.
Ultimately I'd like to combine the two and do some massively multiplayer games.
But to more specifically answer your question I have only one game series (Up Front, Banzai, Desert War, etc.) that I am working on at the moment. Beyond that I have an original game idea that isnt a port of any existing game that I'd like to do and the already mentioned FLEET series if no one else takes it up first.
Truthfully any MMP title is easier to do than a Hasbro one though. MMP, even Mr. Curt Shilling, is far more approachable than Hasbro... Especially for me where I am currently at. Most of the time people don't even return your email, even if just to say "Go %&$* yourself). Generally the smaller companies (like MMP) are much more friendly and communicative.
So I can't do games I can't get approval to do. Which makes it irrelevant to come up with a list. Mostly, if you followed some of my other posts, im not much for direct ports anyway. Some boardgames and card games really deserve it.. Others are best left done just in a basic way with something like a vassal freebie...
