Matrix Games Forums

Just emailed the powers that be behind this link

http://www.aworldatwar.com/

Here is the reply I got (within 2 hours I might add))

Currently you can got to http://www.gmtgames.com and P500 (i.e. pre-order) the game for $120. The design is basically finished, we have started sending our component lists/needs to GMT. The art and counter work is about to begin. So, yes the game does exist, it just is not published yet. I do not have exact details on a publication date, but I will tell you that the more P500 orders that we have, the faster it gets published.

The playtest package is still available as is warplanner, which helps you play be email. It is a good opportunity to take a look at the game.

I think you will like AWAW even better. In fact, we even have some smaller scenarios like Barbarossa, North Africa and several Pacific scenarios. There will be a Battle Manual and there is always the ULTRA magazine.

Thank you for your interest and support of the game.

Paul


175.00 later, or 120.00 bucks pre ordered.

Very expensive admittedly for a game in any form, but hmmm I am seriously thinking of locating the cash for it.

I will seek out the old computer version (my neighbour might still have his copy). But I rarely go with second best in my wargaming.
I don't forsee my playing the computer TR nearly as much as I might play this new fully global design.

Lawyers have to get paid, and they don't get paid if they spend their time suing people with no money, like underdogs.

But aren't there any ethical lawyers out there willing to do it??? Oh sorry, what WAS I thinking???:D

Von Rom:

I am against piracy of buyable commodities whatever they are.

What constitutes priacy? I'm not sure, but let me at least take a partial stab, though of course there will probably be better definitions (I'm not going to look it up). Perhaps the piracy in this case is when someone's property is taken without their permission, and then given or charged to others.

I think we've proved there is no such thing as an unbuyable commodity, which you seem to believe there is. Irrespective of how the law may come down, now or later, you can clearly see that offering up somebody else's goods without their permission is liable to do them some financial harm.

Veldor:

It would seem to me the entire topic falls under "common sense", "good morality", and "ethical behavior". Yet clearly I am wrong as so many practice piracy these days.

Since I have to unfortuneatly believe still in the underlying good of people, I can then only assume that the reason many still engage in the activity is for lack of knowledge of exactly what they are doing.

In practice I personally have found some confirmation in that stance as I believe even Les was of the opinion that only Kazaa themselves were breaking the law and not someone merely utilizing the service...

The laws everyone complain about so much wouldn't be needed if people practiced better judgement in the first place. Those laws unfortuneatly end up usually causing added harm along with their "good".

I hate to see our freedoms encroached on more by even more detailed levels of logging as to who we are, where we go, etc.. but due to all these "little people" as you call them, its going to end up being a neccessity..

Thus because of the ignorant, more of our freedoms get taken away.

Such is one of the true lessons in life...

Basically, it's a lesson in communism isn't it? People think they're entitled to all sorts of things they are not, and as a result they will be derived of what they think they now have. All I know is that authors of books and software have more clout and money than I do. If these guys lose, so do I. It's rather a baiting game that some play to get you to lose what you have, thinking you'll get what you don't need. Bottom line: If it's not yours, don't touch it.

AIBW:

I just downloaded 3rdReich from you know, that one site. Please forgive me!

Underdogs has been out there a long, long time. If it was a problem, legal or otherwise it would have been shut down long ago. That's what lawyers are for, you know.

No, if what I've been told is correct, they are located in Singapore. Their so-called respectability due to time on the web is simply because they cannot be sued. I'm sure napster seemed real respectable due to longevity too, but then they based themselves in the States. Yes, a worse case of injustice in what they offered, but they had the problem of being on this soil, something underdogs does not have.

If Microsoft made an abandonware site where you could download games made by other software publishers, you would see a stampede of lawsuits to shut down the site.

Of course, because not only are people envious of their success, whether it was legal or otherwise, they also are located in the States. Borders can protect a lot of crooks. It makes the whole they're-respectable-because-they've-been-around-so-long argument laughable. They could always settle it by relocating here. Or, did they already relocate from here?

I went to the underdogs site to see if they'd bother to tell you where they're located. I probably won't look too long, but what I have found is this:

We believe that providing games that have been abandoned by their publishers, while technically illegal, is a valuable service to the gaming community because these games are in danger of disappearing into obscurity, and their copyright holders no longer derive any revenues from them.

Yeah, illegal, by their own admission, flowery intentions or not.

Originally posted by Von Rom
Have fun!

When a game is no longer available, where do we go to find a copy to try it out. . .?

Ebay

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vi ... gory=11053

Originally posted by Charles_22
I went to the underdogs site to see if they'd bother to tell you where they're located. I probably won't look too long, but what I have found is this:



Yeah, illegal, by their own admission, flowery intentions or not.

They will remove any game at the request of the publisher.

Originally posted by Les the Sarge 9-1
Just emailed the powers that be behind this link

http://www.aworldatwar.com/

Here is the reply I got (within 2 hours I might add))

Currently you can got to http://www.gmtgames.com and P500 (i.e. pre-order) the game for $120. The design is basically finished, we have started sending our component lists/needs to GMT. The art and counter work is about to begin. So, yes the game does exist, it just is not published yet. I do not have exact details on a publication date, but I will tell you that the more P500 orders that we have, the faster it gets published.

The playtest package is still available as is warplanner, which helps you play be email. It is a good opportunity to take a look at the game.

I think you will like AWAW even better. In fact, we even have some smaller scenarios like Barbarossa, North Africa and several Pacific scenarios. There will be a Battle Manual and there is always the ULTRA magazine.

Thank you for your interest and support of the game.

Paul


175.00 later, or 120.00 bucks pre ordered.

Very expensive admittedly for a game in any form, but hmmm I am seriously thinking of locating the cash for it.

I will seek out the old computer version (my neighbour might still have his copy). But I rarely go with second best in my wargaming.
I don't forsee my playing the computer TR nearly as much as I might play this new fully global design.

Their games look pretty good. Too bad they're only board games (although, it's still nice to see they're are still being made).

Hope the BIG WWII strategy game will come to the computer. . .

WiTP is on the way. . . Now all we need is the European theatre to be re-done. . .

A bird in the hand as they say....

Considering what has been already made for the computer (recently), crud such as HoI, yeah right like I want to spend 50 bucks or 5 bucks for an RTS piece of garbage of how to run a grand strategy wargame (for those that like this game, do us a favour, don't quit your day job to design computer games).

The last time someone made a computer game that was truely global and done well was when? Not recently, and certainly not a Windows functional design.

I personally think the next global computer wargame, will likely pander more to the need for flash and not have the A3R turn using wargamer in mind (we are after all boring dinosaurs according to those that like dumb flashy games half of the time).
So I am not planning on anxiously awaiting it to appear.

Strategic Command was a good enough effort, but it is not the complex game the A3R fanatic wants. It might morph into a global design in a couple of years (we can only hope).
War in the Pacific might go global, but then it is just as likely to stay theater specific like Strategic Command might.

Or maybe someone will finally just go and computerise this new incarnation of A3R ie A World at War, or perhaps the people doing World in Flames will finally figure out how to properly do an interface for their program.

But for my money, even if it will be a lot of money, I am inclined to purcahse this new board game. I won't have any easier time finding opponents. I won't have any easier time securing a table. I won't have any easier time finding the time.

As it goes, the Warplanner software is set up to use A World at War, so you won't have any hassle with an opponent any more than you would with a computer game.
I have a 4' x 8' dining table myself.
And I can play the game if I really want to (it all comes down to assigning priorities).

I don't think the future lies in Matrix fussing with an already greatly surpassed game (Third Reich). The program has to do more than simply run on XP with a few patches to fix up an AI.

They need to select games with potential to go farther.

Maybe we should get the Matrix team to hijack the World in Flames program and see if it can actually be given an interface that is worth looking at.

Originally posted by Les the Sarge 9-1
A bird in the hand as they say....

Considering what has been already made for the computer (recently), crud such as HoI, yeah right like I want to spend 50 bucks or 5 bucks for an RTS piece of garbage of how to run a grand strategy wargame (for those that like this game, do us a favour, don't quit your day job to design computer games).

The last time someone made a computer game that was truely global and done well was when? Not recently, and certainly not a Windows functional design.

I personally think the next global computer wargame, will likely pander more to the need for flash and not have the A3R turn using wargamer in mind (we are after all boring dinosaurs according to those that like dumb flashy games half of the time).
So I am not planning on anxiously awaiting it to appear.

Strategic Command was a good enough effort, but it is not the complex game the A3R fanatic wants. It might morph into a global design in a couple of years (we can only hope).
War in the Pacific might go global, but then it is just as likely to stay theater specific like Strategic Command might.

Or maybe someone will finally just go and computerise this new incarnation of A3R ie A World at War, or perhaps the people doing World in Flames will finally figure out how to properly do an interface for their program.

But for my money, even if it will be a lot of money, I am inclined to purcahse this new board game. I won't have any easier time finding opponents. I won't have any easier time securing a table. I won't have any easier time finding the time.

As it goes, the Warplanner software is set up to use A World at War, so you won't have any hassle with an opponent any more than you would with a computer game.
I have a 4' x 8' dining table myself.
And I can play the game if I really want to (it all comes down to assigning priorities).

I don't think the future lies in Matrix fussing with an already greatly surpassed game (Third Reich). The program has to do more than simply run on XP with a few patches to fix up an AI.

They need to select games with potential to go farther.

Maybe we should get the Matrix team to hijack the World in Flames program and see if it can actually be given an interface that is worth looking at.

Les: I agree with your sentiments. Basically, I like the tactile feel of board wargames: the counters, look, and overall interaction with the game. . .

The computerized version of Third Reich (v1.38) shows that a challenging WWII European strategy game can indeed me made for the computer. It has a very strong AI. If you haven't tried it yet, give it a whirl. Even when not at the computer, I have been trying to think of strategies to beat the Allies. . . It definitely has that one more turn factor. . .

I had big hopes for Strategic Command. But it simply looks like Third Reich's little brother. Maybe there is no need to try to re-invent the wheel; just improve on old classics. . .

Despite its short-comings and age, the computerized version of Third Reich is still the best WWII Eurpean strategy game out there. This says alot about those who programmed and tested the game.

I would like to see many more changes incorporated into the game, especially move from seasonal to monthly turns, as well as have many more improvements that have already been suggested. . .

When will a new version come down the road?

I hope sooner, than later. . .

Cheers!

testing

I posted three posts today which got swallowed up into nothingness, so I can't remember what I said, realizing all the while that those posts may well appear on here. In any event I have this quote to ..... ponder:

If you're going to cheat, cheat fair. If there's one thing I can't stand it's a crooked crook - Moe Howard

Originally posted by Charles_22
I posted three posts today which got swallowed up into nothingness, so I can't remember what I said, realizing all the while that those posts may well appear on here. In any event I have this quote to ..... ponder:

If you're going to cheat, cheat fair. If there's one thing I can't stand it's a crooked crook - Moe Howard

Perhaps your previous posts were "stolen"? Maybe you will find them listed on the underdog site. In which case, you should immediately send them an email requesting that they. . .

Beating a Dead Horse

Dakota tribal wisdom says that when you discover you are riding a dead horse, the best strategy is to dismount. However, in game forums we often try other strategies with dead horses, including the following:

1. Buying a stronger whip.
2. Changing riders.
3. Say things like, "This is the way we have always ridden this horse."
4. Appointing a committee to study the horse.
5. Arranging to visit other sites to see how they ride dead horses.
6. Increasing the standards to ride dead horses.
7. Appointing more members to revive the dead horse.
8. Creating a training session to increase our riding ability.
9. Comparing the state of dead horses in todays gaming environment.
10. Change the requirements declaring that "This horse is not dead."
11. Hire contractors to ride the dead horse.
12. Harnessing several dead horses together for increased speed.
13. Declaring that "No horse is too dead to beat."
14. Providing additional funding to increase the horse's performance.
15. Do a Cost Analysis study to see if gamers can ride it cheaper.
16. Purchase a product to make dead horses run faster.
17. Declare the horse is "better, faster and cheaper" dead.
18. Form a quality circle to find uses for dead horses.
19. Revisit the performance requirements for horses.
20. Say this horse was procured with cost as an independent variable.
21. Promote the dead horse to a supervisory censorship position.

Charles, I had numerous troubles posting today as well.

Solution, back button copy paste into text file on desktop, try again.

Took some time with two posts today, finally got somewhere though.

Matrix must have been busy today.

Heck I have had trouble with this post too.

Von Rom: Pulling Moe Howard on someone is no more serious than someone's earlier attempt to pull Bob Dylan on someone, but at least Moe is funny. IOW, I believe the rather prone carcass is having a feather applied to it at this point.

Originally posted by Charles_22
Von Rom: Pulling Moe Howard on someone is no more serious than someone's earlier attempt to pull Bob Dylan on someone, but at least Moe is funny. IOW, I believe the rather prone carcass is having a feather applied to it at this point.

Charles_22: No harm done. I was also just joking around.

We are basically on the same page about things.

If there is enough interest (ie more people start playing Third Reich and commenting on it), then perhaps we might yet see a new computer version being made.

BTW, it would be great if someone knew how to make a simple scenario editor for this game. . .

You Third Reich fans could also try out the Demo of the War in Europe game (Divisional level, weekly turns) a computer adaption of the famous boardgame from SPI.

The computer game has not AI, but it enforces the rules and is ideal for PBEM. It also has dated graphics

The demo could be found on www.decisiongames.com

Regards,

Hanno

Originally posted by Hanno Meier
You Third Reich fans could also try out the Demo of the War in Europe game (Divisional level, weekly turns) a computer adaption of the famous boardgame from SPI.

The computer game has not AI, but it enforces the rules and is ideal for PBEM. It also has dated graphics

The demo could be found on www.decisiongames.com

Regards,

Hanno

Thanks for the heads-up, Hanno.

I usually play against the AI in games. I find PBEM games can sometimes take forever, and then I start to lose interest. . .

Once I get into a battle, I usually like to keep playing for a few hours straight.

I find the AI in 3rd Reich to be quite good.

BTW, does anyone have a particular strategy in 3rd Reich when they start the game as the Axis? After Poland, do you tackle the USSR? or France? do you try to drive the British from North Africa?

What have you found to be successful in your games?

Von Rom, your question regarding strategy really requires a few additional details.

First of all TR vs A3R. Rules changes make a big difference.

One of the first things I had to do when I switched to A3R was ditch all my General magazine based "perfect" strategies that no longer had any value.

Some things just no longer worked. For instance the OOB of the nations were slightly altered. The having or not having of just a couple of counters in the hands of an experienced player can be all the difference.

Then there is the variant chits of TR and the Diplomacy manual of A3R. These two factors greatly impact desired choices.
I am not yet sure how these are modelled in TR PC yet.

But for me, it also depends on the opponent. Vs a person, I won't tend to push accepted parameters of good sense.
Generally attacking Russia before finishing France is the same as saying, yes I want to lose, I wonder how long it will take this time.

Attacking aggressively in the Med is a good way to open up your victory options, but it also depends on how well you took out France. If you mangled the job of defeating France, you might not have the needed time to do a Med strategy.
If the Italian player has mangled just about anything, then its a German show (forget getting equal service from the Italians).

In A3R delaying the Russian and US entry is actually something that can be manipulated with some level of skill. And when the US enters definitely counts.

BRPs, who goes first makes a damned big difference.
The manual said it and most players don't realise it, but TR at any version is about who spends best, not who uses combat units best.

If the British/French sides can spend better than you, then they can also determine the orders of the turns, and can largely mangle your best efforts on the battlefield (even if you appear to be winning).

The game is NOT over till it's over really means something in this game. You can march into Paris and Moscow and still get handed your head on a platter at gaming closing if you still have not met actual victory criterion.

Those that plan on playing TR PC and wish to do it well, would greatly benefit from hunting down some old issues of the General.
They had some great articles on opening set ups and classic moves. They might prove to be excellent tools in this game.

One thing I liked about TR PC, was that it will actually let you save multiple opening setups for the forces.

Originally posted by Les the Sarge 9-1
Von Rom, your question regarding strategy really requires a few additional details.

First of all TR vs A3R. Rules changes make a big difference.

One of the first things I had to do when I switched to A3R was ditch all my General magazine based "perfect" strategies that no longer had any value.

Some things just no longer worked. For instance the OOB of the nations were slightly altered. The having or not having of just a couple of counters in the hands of an experienced player can be all the difference.

Then there is the variant chits of TR and the Diplomacy manual of A3R. These two factors greatly impact desired choices.
I am not yet sure how these are modelled in TR PC yet.

But for me, it also depends on the opponent. Vs a person, I won't tend to push accepted parameters of good sense.
Generally attacking Russia before finishing France is the same as saying, yes I want to lose, I wonder how long it will take this time.

Attacking aggressively in the Med is a good way to open up your victory options, but it also depends on how well you took out France. If you mangled the job of defeating France, you might not have the needed time to do a Med strategy.
If the Italian player has mangled just about anything, then its a German show (forget getting equal service from the Italians).

In A3R delaying the Russian and US entry is actually something that can be manipulated with some level of skill. And when the US enters definitely counts.

BRPs, who goes first makes a damned big difference.
The manual said it and most players don't realise it, but TR at any version is about who spends best, not who uses combat units best.

If the British/French sides can spend better than you, then they can also determine the orders of the turns, and can largely mangle your best efforts on the battlefield (even if you appear to be winning).

The game is NOT over till it's over really means something in this game. You can march into Paris and Moscow and still get handed your head on a platter at gaming closing if you still have not met actual victory criterion.

Those that plan on playing TR PC and wish to do it well, would greatly benefit from hunting down some old issues of the General.
They had some great articles on opening set ups and classic moves. They might prove to be excellent tools in this game.

One thing I liked about TR PC, was that it will actually let you save multiple opening setups for the forces.

Les: So true.

When someone compared PC Third Reich to a grand chess game, they weren't kidding. You really need to plan several moves ahead. Critical to success is learning how to setup and properly use armour exploitation. The AI is very good in both setting this up and in countering it by the human player.

This is where learning the many nuances in this game is critical to success.

In the few games I have played, I found there is no time for "relaxation", as time is a critical factor in defeating your opponents and then quickly redeploying your units to take on the next opponent.

There is a certain time-table in the game that you must always keep an eye on. However, all a person's well-laid plans can be thrown out the window, if, as you have so rightly mentioned, you wind up spending too many BRPs, and the Allies then get the initiative, and move first. This can definitely hurt, especially if the Allies go first in two consecutive turns. . . ouch. . .

As Germany, I usually take out Poland in the first turn, then shift all my forces to deal with the French. In the meantime, I use the Italians to take out Yugoslavia and Greece. The British always seem to be too strong in North Africa to make any real headway there. Although, I would like to refine my strategies enough to be able to eventually seize North Africa as well.

The real clincher of course, is mauling the USSR enough before the USA starts landing forces in Europe. It is a tough balancing act. . .

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".