John Kettler Posted April 18, 2016 Share Posted April 18, 2016 While visiting my brother and family in Washington state, he took me to a pretty impressive game shop where I got exposed to a series of games called A World at War, by GMT Games. I didn't have enough time to do more than drool over the boxes, but what I saw was more than enough to fuel extreme Cold War gaming fantasies. Not only can you fight in the Fulda Gap and such, but WW III can rage in lots of other places, including the US (apparently as the result of things which happen in the strategic level overarching situation). In order not to scavenge sales from CMBS, be sure to buy it first if you don't already own it! And why did I drool? This is a platoon level game (maybe higher as well), which puts it smack on our turf. In fact, it occurred to me this would be a great way for the hopeful among us to begin thinking about what BFC might be able to give us in terms of the kinds of battles, the forces and locations. I happened to first look at A World at War: Is Paris Burning? and just about lost it when it talked about AMX-30s defending Paris. Why? As a high schooler, I had the motorized Tamiya AMX-30, which I lovingly camouflage painted and drove over the snow in Greenville, South Carolina. I also know that this tank had a rifled gun, but fired HEAT which was despun by virtue of slip rings. Otherwise, the spin would defocus and degrade the shaped charge jet. I'll be the first to admit that in thinking of Cold War armored combat, I thought almost exclusively of the US, for that was what I was used to from games such as Red Star White Star, Mech War 77 (85 was ridiculously complex and was abandoned) and Firefight (played all heavily). None of these had the BAOR or the Bundeswehr, which were, I believe, in the expansions to Boots & Saddles, though I don't recall ever seeing the French. Nor were there any other NATO forces I can remember in the wargame abortion called MBT, AH's reality inversion of the real armor, anti-armor situation vs the Russians. When I found a frontal penetration by a Russian 125 mm on a T-80(?) vs the front of a Gen One Abrams was impossible at one hex range (i.e., directly adjacent), I gave up in a combination of rage and despair. If AH couldn't get even the core engagement dynamics right, then I saw no point in continuing. Subject to prior purchase of CMBS, if you're of a modern bent and want the 3 series game engine, you may wish to check out the Cold War games which evidently form part of A World at War. Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnarly Posted April 18, 2016 Share Posted April 18, 2016 And you need a table just for the counters!! https://boardgamegeek.com/image/1410482/world-war?size=original 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted April 18, 2016 Author Share Posted April 18, 2016 gnarly, Your link requires a PW. Here, though, is a shot of the map, this one for a German force vs Russians, which shows both the box and a dice roller for visual scale. Here is an overhead showing the rulebook and the map side by side, together with some of the counters. Unless this is but one of a bunch of maps necessary for this battle, then I don't see a problem. The original strategic game is a monster, no doubt about it. This explains why the low end for playing time is 24 hours! Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vyrago Posted April 19, 2016 Share Posted April 19, 2016 Your link is indeed to GMT's World at War game, however that's not the game you're talking about. The one you're talking about is the World at War series by Lock n Load Publishing. https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgamefamily/3203/world-war-series Here is the official store page: http://store.lnlpublishing.com/world-at-war I highly recommend this series, there's even a little homage to the novel Team Yankee for those that are nostalgic. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted April 19, 2016 Author Share Posted April 19, 2016 vyrago, Welcome aboard! Two game series--with the same title? Fabulous! No wonder I got confused. Should I place bets they both run at the same tactical level? Never mind. From further research, it appears that one firm bought the game series from the other. I think. Based on the fact that L&L's Eisenbach Gap also has Death of 1st Panzer included, my money is on L&L as the current series owner, a notion buttressed by the listing you so kindly provided. It may be too late to do so, but if not, I suggest you break that URL to L&L. Failing that, reguest the Mods to do so, since publishing commercial links of this sort (especially wargame firms) is a no-no. Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Douglas Ruddd Posted April 19, 2016 Share Posted April 19, 2016 (edited) John, played the modern SPI games all the time, then I got this beast Mech War 2/Suez To Golan (1979). Mech War 2 had the US, UK and West Germans. What I liked was platoons had anywhere from 3 to 5 tanks, and there was step reduction, 2 knocked out etc.... Mech War 2 Edited April 19, 2016 by Douglas Ruddd To much coffee 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vyrago Posted April 19, 2016 Share Posted April 19, 2016 (edited) As an owner of BOTH games, I can confirm they are entirely separate games. The GMT "A World at War" is an absolute MONSTER theater level World War 2 game. It takes literally DAYS upon DAYS to complete the entire war. As the boardgame geek playtime eludes, plan on needing around 48 hours of play time. The Lock n Load "World at War Series" is a series of games, the premier of which being being Eisenbach Gap with expansions and stand-alones. That is a company level game set in the summer of 1985 during a fictional World War 3. As for my link, I apologize for violating forum rules but I don't easily see a way to edit my post. I'll try again, but if not perhaps the mods can just remove the link but leave the rest. Edited April 19, 2016 by vyrago missing quotes 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abbasid111 Posted April 19, 2016 Share Posted April 19, 2016 Red Star/White Star! That brings back memories. I loved playing modern era even back then when that was released by SPI. I loved the Mech War 2 series, Firefight, Nato, the Modern Quad battles. Great stuff. But Black Sea is the bomb. No counters to knock around or lose, no cat deciding that the inter-german border is a good place for a nap. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted April 24, 2016 Author Share Posted April 24, 2016 (edited) Douglas Ruddd, I just checked, and it was indeed Mech War '77 I played, the one in the lurid and alarming box. I could've sworn the follow on game was called Mech War 85, but it looks as though I'm wrong. Mech War 2, which I got without the two additional games included, was simply overwhelming--for all of us! No one (brothers and friends) wanted to wade through two crammed tiny print filled books, one for the game system and the other for the game specific rules. Not to mention deal with something like 14 phases a turn. May've been a great game, but we found found something easier to play. I forget what.https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/5383/mechwar-77 Abbasid111, Did you know that SPI cheated on the map for Firefight? The map was actual terrain at, I believe, Ft. Leavenworth, but at the Army's behest, SPI removed the TOW wrecking brush. Why? The guidance wires would snag on brush and break! Oops. Firefight made the Army look good by artificially enhancing ATGM effectiveness! I absolutely agree CMBS is the bomb. I love having the computer handle scads of things I would otherwise have to, not getting the evil eye from Mom for tying up the dining room table and/or gaming into the night, not having to worry about knocking over counters--and especially being able to fight simultaneously rather than UGO/IGO and having to deal with 1.2.4.3.1 stuff: "The phasing player, may, in sub phase 11, elect to call in Copperhead, the fire resolution of which will take place in the following turn in the Artillery Resolution Phase." I loved the social aspect of the games, but, all other things being equal, it's far easier to play CMBS than a serious tactical wargame with maps and easily displaced and/or lost counters. Speaking as someone who played many battles with miniatures, it's also like having the world's best sand table most of the time. And it doesn't chew up either your figures or that expensive first surface mirror you used to determine LOS. Regards, John Kettler Edited April 24, 2016 by John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abbasid111 Posted April 24, 2016 Share Posted April 24, 2016 And you don't have to paint all the blasted figures either! Tanks and ships weren't bad but painting napoleonic figures well took some time. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted April 25, 2016 Author Share Posted April 25, 2016 (edited) Abbasid111, We never played Napoleonics, but I do take your point.Speaking of Napoleonics, I was vastly disappointed when the 3-D Napoleonics game BFC was supposed to publish foundered because the outside developer blew the schedule. Badly. I painted some wicked looking German armor and Paks in sand and green dapple. Micro Armour™ on a sand table with flecks of green all over it from model railroad grass is practically invisible. Indeed, we had to mount rigorous searches when done so that we got all the pieces back in their trays! Brother George has them still up in the Sea-Tac area. Good times! Regards, John Kettler Edited April 25, 2016 by John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.