SC, 3rd Reich, & some Rambo-ling comments

[jon_j_rambo]

Rembember 3rd Reich? I played some 3rd Reich (Avalon Hill's) hex board & I'll tell you what sucked:

1) Naval combat was a joke. Roll a six-side to intercept. Gee, that was neat.

2) Putting a bunch of subs in a convoy box with a bunch of anti-sub crap. Too deterministic. Yeah, it's historically, but no fun to play.

3) The entire ground combat system sucked! It was all about adding up a bunch of numbers to gain the best combat chart.

4) Waiting for ever while your opponent moves. Remember playing & it took the other guy 45-minutes to move his crap.

5) Attacking Lennigrad was ALL LUCK. It was impossible to get a 2-1 combat chart. The best you could get was 1-1. If you rolled a 5, you lost everything. Gee, that's gamey. Didn't matter what you did or how you played, that roll had to be with all your juicy pieces.

What was cool:

1) Where you had the option to do attrition combat instead of offensives. Helped the Russia cause, because the Germans was all about tank explotation.

2) You could overstack ground units long as the ended the turn stacked correctly. Remember, 3rd Reich only had 4 turns a year.

3) They had Russian winters.

4) You had the option to save money & it would grow your base salary. Great for England.

5) Paratroops, these guys were cool. You could use your imagination.

What I would add to SC (some different comments):

1) Increase the effects of being out of supply in a cumulative manner for units. It should be exponential.

2) Let the defender set-up the units when a declaration of war happens anyway they want. Make them pay operating costs maybe. Yes, I like history, but I like gaming better.

3) Let you build fortresses. Wasn't their a Siegferd Line (spelling) or something?

4) Let you spend cash into politics & spies. Give you a little information about troop movement. Right now, spotting comes from AirPower.

5) Make the Johnny Horton oldies song "Sink the Bismark" mean something. Put that big bad ass battleship in the game.

6) Increase the effect of attacking across a river.

7) Cut back the number of total units you can have. Yes, you can recruit troops, but if you have $500 as the Germans you stuff alot of corps into France. Takes away from the gaming aspect.

8) Change Yugoslavia! Get those mountains into play, get some weather. Change the plunder rules for them. Those psychos don't give up because the Capital is gone.

9) Make the Germans/Axis garrison cities. Have them get "worn-down" by the city population. They should not full cash from people that don't have the iron-fist on them.

10) How about railroads for the Germans? Change the Operand rules. Don't allow units to move across Europe for the same price. Don't allow them to move as far.

Just "typing out loud"

Rambo

[ December 02, 2002, 10:42 PM: Message edited by: jon_j_rambo ]

[wlweir]

I remember 3rd Reich board game fondly. Yet as you with a bit of a shudder. Combat was easily reduced to number crunching. Latter on we decided you were not allowed to spend time adding up odds. If you did you had to make the attack regardless. Speeded it up, and added some good twists.

I remember once while playing the germans, my russian opponent commenced with 1-1 attacks from Lenigrad to the Black Sea with disasterous results for himslef. He decided all was lost in a matter of time and decided to gamble. Ah, the memories, I could see clearly all the way to Moscow!

[daringly]

I have many fond memories of A3R as well. It was AMAZING how easily you could quickly lose a game. The research rules were a lot of fun also ("Nukes? How did you get nukes in 43?!?")

[Compassion]

Oh argle bargle... A3R? The first time I saw that someone had put an A in front of 3R I stood on the floor of the con I was at with mouth agape. They took a complicated game and made it more so. NEver got into A3r, but spent many a long weekend with 3R 3rd ed....

[StyxParadox]

I must say that I loved 3R. My friend and I were never at the level that you guys seem to be at so it was just fun. The truth is that I got SC because it reminded me of 3R. I don't think I could play a board game (No time). I can't even imagine a game of The Longest Day - another AH game. The truth is I allways wanted to play that game but never had the money to buy it.

[waltero]

I would much more prefer 3R than SC!

my guess is that you had more control in 3R than SC.

Who has time for bord Games anymore?

Although I like what Hubert has done. I really don't think he has played 3R or many war Games?

Who cares about the complexity of rules in any game if it be a computer game.

I love SC cant get enough of it. It will get old in time.

What we really need is a world at war computer game.

[BriantheWise]

This is what I think:

A3R was most excellent. For it's day, when you did not have all the computer enhanced helpers, the simplicity of a six sided dice made it work.

Yes, there were those issues with the attack odds against Leningrad (and the 2 to 1 against Paris, as I recall, roll a 1, and then a 1 again, and boom!), but....

It's too bad they couldn't make the game work on a computer. I was pshyced when they published they published computer A3R. I was furious after I bought it.

I was psyched when they came out with Axis and Allies. I was furious after I bought it.

I was psyched when I heard about Hearts of Iron. Finally, the whole world at war game. I am dissappointed, as it is disjointed. The concepts are good, but they do not fit. The world at war on a divisional, hourly schedule. What were they thinking.

I was psyched when i bought Strategic Command. I have issues with it, yes. But it's the closest anyone has got to getting it right (I could tell you, and you know this, about the things that are wrong, but overall, it works).

I have been gaming since Midway came out (remember that, anyone? and Tactics II, Kriegspiel? D-Day?)

So this is my opinion. SC is better than COS. But i am still left wanting. SC is great, kudos to Hubert. But you know, after playing 1900+ games,and losing sometimes,but mostly having fun, I'm just going to make it. The game. The World at War. I've already written the rules, made the map, and am stealing concepts from CIV, A3R, this game, hoi.

What Hubert did well here, was to simplify. And I'll steal that too.

So I can make a great game. The world at war.

That's my opinion.

[jmbunnelle]

Advanced Third Reich was (is) fantastic. If someone can reproduce THAT on the computer, I'll eat my shorts. And Hubert's too.

I loved the act of picking options for each turn. I've yet to see a game steal, er, borrow the idea of an attrition option. I loved the number crunching and thought this complimented the economic/strategic aspect of the game nicely. Besides, I prefer crunching figures over pushing several thousand SPI counters around on a 10' X 24' map.

[Konstantin V. Kotelnikov]

Advanced Third Reich was good. I also had a first edition of regular 3rd Reich. Sold them.

As a computer game it sucked, I couldn't sell it fast enough. I was glad I kept the original box and let it sit on the shelf for years. It pulled in over $100 on ebay.

TSR/SPI's World War Two European Theater game was far better, it was larger, and the revised edition was awesome. It just doesn't seem to have the circulation the Avalon hill games had.

If someone could recreate that for the PC it would be sweet. It and Guns of August were the only board games I kept when I sold my collection on Ebay years ago.

I miss my Squadleader and Panzerblitz/Leader games and sometimes I wish I had kept the Fortress Europa and 1st Edition Bulge. I miss all of them, but no one played them anymore. Everyone was going with PC games.

Such is the march of time.

-dave

[sogard]

Just to provide a contrary opinion; I thought ADVANCED THIRD REICH or THIRD REICH in any of its iterations was an OK strategic level WW II wargame. I have always thought that WORLD IN FLAMES is a much better game. I know that there are advocates for both games; but, ADVANCED THIRD REICH was/is a game that appeals to those who like to develop perfect strategies and get all their ducks in a row and deliver the perfect blow. WiF is much more problematic and much less susceptable to the perfect planning syndrome. WiF feels more real world to me and it always presented WW II on a global, holistic scale which was not true with THIRD REICH.

[ December 10, 2002, 06:25 PM: Message edited by: sogard ]

[BriantheWise]

Comments about the comments:

I truly loved Fortess Europa. It was one of the games, besides 3R, that I could just immerse myself in, and even play against myself. It was one the game I could even play against anothter friend or acquaintance (strategic simulations clut at the UW), but it was hard to finish.

Squad Leader worked out just as good, but wasn't satisfying to me, after a while. It got complicated, with its sequels, and my desire was not ranger rabbit upclose on the battle field. Still, it was great until it got over compicated.

A3R was different. Playing against/with friends, allowed you to get that global perspective, the long term planning, the luck, and the loving of those little cardboard pieces. (I sincerely enjoyed the different colors of the various countries).

I think Hubert hit on something here. I really do, (and especially for a first timer. (ps, i'm a no timer)). The flaws about this game are about as countless as the wanna haves we as gamers desire.

I wonder if you can even make a game to have an AI versatile enough to do a Sealion, balancing out a Russian risk of war.

I think about Gary Grigby's games. War in Russia (back then when it was in black and white and graphics were not a thing we thought of. War in the South Pacific).

Mr. Grigsby didn't patch much. He made the game, sold it, and generally walked away. New version, new game, new cost. But even those were great.

Yes, I am rambling. Bit here are the two dictomous thoughts/conclusions....

Strategic Command is a game, now so fixed up, that it will consume hours of our time, against the AI, against each other (kind of wish the reviewers would review), that get's as close as one could expect and surpasses that. (i still have my issues).

SC2, if it ever happens, will look nothing like this. And shouldn't. If there were an expansion pack on this game, with these rules, it should be world war 1. It would probably work, and Hubert could sell the "expansion pack", for $5, and we would buy it. I would, anyways. I would buy it for $10. If the game hadn't been so inexpensive to begin with, I'd be willing to pay $15. Someone commented that that was all this was. World War 2, in WW1 clothes. I disagree.

So that's enough comments from me on this thread for now. (I know some do not like what I have said in the past).

[jon_j_rambo]

Whoever designed SC, had to love 3R.

[Donan]

I must add my praise for A3R, in it's day. I too

loved that game. And amazingly poured over it's rules with relish to such a degree I became a 'judge/monitor' for several tournament games at

the UW. Alas, with age and such, I reflect on this as

incredable, for now any degree of rules that demand 'schooling' to learn I shudder at. I just don't have the mental stamina (or time) for it anymore:) I've barely gotten into SC yet, but

relish the endeavor. Have I missed any AAR's or

insight's to it? It looks pretty straightforward

and the designer seems to have done some amazing

support to this community, I just like all the little helps I can get to get me into a game quickly.

Thanks/Donan

p.s. Slight OT: I use to love The Russian Campaing

boardgame for it too had wonderfully simple rules, but played quite historically (darn, memory

problem, was this the title? I know there were two similar titles, but one was really great, whereas the other was mediocre.

[Konstantin V. Kotelnikov]

Originally posted by Donan:

p.s. Slight OT: I use to love The Russian Campaing

boardgame for it too had wonderfully simple rules, but played quite historically (darn, memory

problem, was this the title? I know there were two similar titles, but one was really great, whereas the other was mediocre.

Donan, there were many games out there that covered the Russian Front, but the One I believe you are trying to remember was "The Russian Campaign" by Avalon Hill.

It was very simplistic with it's two fold out 4 section boards and very simple counters. It rules were something you could sit down and read quickly and then actually play the game.

It was not a bad game at all. I prefered TSR/SPI's Barbarossa. That was very complex and required a slew of rules. But it too had a major flaw, it didn't really address airpower beyond giving each side points to use.

I'm not sure what the other game you might be thinking of could be. But there were many out there.

And lord did I enjoy WIR when I got it. I thought it couldn't get any better than that. Of course I also thought that when we bought our Atari 2600 back in the early 80's.

D'oh! And time marchs on.

-dave

[jmbunnelle]

World In Flames is great but I just don't have the space nor the time for that anymore. I love the counters for it but their map is so horribly busy that it gives me a headache just to look at it. The computer demo I toyed around with was clunky and unimpressive. God knows when they'll finally get around to releasing it. Besides, I enjoy playing against the A.I. which will be impossible from what I understand.

Recently, for a tactical fix, I've been playing the Europe Aflame and Drang Nacht Osten scenarios for TOAW:COW. An amazing level of research went into both, especially the latter. If someone is interested in Barbarossa and has a copy of TOAW:COW (only made for the Century of Warfare version), it's a must-play.

[Les the Sarge 9-1b]

I love wargames.

I love counters, plain boring counters.

I like highly detailed model tanks, but I don't need an animation to make me happy in a wargame.

I like simple rules mechanics as much as complex ones. 6 sided dice were fine in either case.

I like hexes, it doesn't matter if they are visible on the screen or not, I like them. I don't need the computer to replace them, I like them.

I like abstractions if they work. I don't absolutely need to assign every plane to every mission. A simple air unit counter works just fine at higher echelons.

I don't need to game out every aspect of a war.

Sub warfare, strategic bombing etc. doesn't always have to be done directly.

I like history. I want to relive it without to much effort. But I want to see what it was like, and see what it took.

I want the nations to act the way they did (more or less). I want the same economc burdens put on my shoulders, the same technical hurdles. I want to know if I have what it takes. Could I have done it better?

I don't want to play a scifi revisit of the 40's.

I want to recreate WW2.

[Donan]

Yep, that's it then Dave. I'm pretty sure

it was an AH game.

Thanks/Donan

(I could search thru my old boxes filled

with 'ancient boardgames' Anyway, back

to topic. SC is a great game for us old

boardgamers. Thanks Hubert!

[sogard]

Well, WORLD IN FLAMES (WiF) from the very beginning gave you ALL of WW II because THIRD REICH only provided the European Theater. Even now, WiF provides a much better global view of WW II than ADVANCED THIRD REICH. The air and naval componants of WiF are vastly superior and much more realistic than in THIRD REICH.

The major difference in people who like one game over the other is their style of gaming. THIRD REICH is more akin to chess in that it rewards play where perfection is the key. WiF is a game which is much more difficult to synthesize and come up with a perfect strategy. Players are required to be much more reactive to game events than in THIRD REICH. Both games have benefited from years of play, updates and reworking. Both games are much improved from when they made initial appearance.

Obviously they are both reasonably good wargames; but, my preference has been and remains with WiF.

[ December 11, 2002, 05:29 PM: Message edited by: sogard ]

[JerseyJohn]

Donan

"Yep, that's it then Dave. I'm pretty sure."

Holy Nostalgia Batman!

I'm pretty sure the game you're talking about, by Avalon Hill, was called Stalingrad, although it was actually the Barbarossa campaign. Avalon Hill put it out in either 1964 or 65; it came in a red and blue box with a montage of Russian Campaign photos. It was standard Avalon Hill with corps sized units. The Russians were weighted toward defense, units with values like 5-7-4 and the Germans were uniform, the best being their full stregnth Panzers which were 8-8-4s. Germans could stack three high and Russians two. It started in June of 41 and ended in March '43, I believe. A good game, primitive, but good.

It's successor is the one called Russian Campaign , which was somewhat more sophisticated and came out in the early '70s.

The first of the "grand tactical" Avalon Hill Games that I recall was D-Day, which came out in 1962; division sized units but with a few German Brigades/regiments for variety, though they observed the same stacking rules as the others. Red and blue counters, lots of HQs and blanks that had no real function at first but were assigned uses by Avalon Hill as the years passed and the same package and pieces was made to include V-2 sites, etc., very crafty of the manufacturer. From the that one the others evolved, Stalingrad and Afrika Korps simultaneously, some Civil War Battle games -- several versions of Gettysburg and Chancellorsville, all much different from one another -- Battle of the Bulge, Guadalcanal, Blitzkrieg, and later Panzerblitz, etc..

Too bad the guys who were designing those games didn't have PCs to work with. Even though it was the sixties the guys who played them used to speculate on how they'd be if you could run it all through a mainframe and not be able to see your opponent's pieces, etc.. I always thought some sort of computer was all they needed to be perfect. Of course, times being what they were, the added touch would have cost around a million bucks or so and required it's own house!

SPI came out with innumerable wargames. They had at least two very different versions of the Moscow Campaign running simultaneously! I think one was weighted heavily toward weather and the other toward supply lines. That was around 1974.

Barbarossa, if it's the same game I'm thinking of, was the whole Russian campaign with army sized units, tank corps and a few airfleet counters. The crt was oriented toward advance and retreat rather than sheer slaughter, which made player strategy more involved.

And of course, everyone who subscribed to SPI's monthly magazine received the Battle of Waterloo game FREE! Each issue came with a full sized and complete war game! The magazine was very interesting in it's own right. That simple Waterloo game, Brigade Infantry/Cavalry and Artillery Battalions, was also terrific.

Considering how great their board games were, it's hard to understand how Avalon Hill went so wrong when they went to PC's. I didn't care for any of their computer versions -- waited patiently for thirty years expecting something great to come out, and when it did everything was a bust!

[ December 11, 2002, 05:39 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Andre Bolkonsky]

Nice recap of Avalon Hill, John. You did leave out one point.

Out of that list, in terms of sheer fun and replayability, The Russian Campaign was the best Russian Front tabletop game I've ever played.

Just my humble opinion.

[sogard]

Originally posted by Andre Bolkonsky:

Nice recap of Avalon Hill, John. You did leave out one point.

Out of that list, in terms of sheer fun and replayability, The Russian Campaign was the best Russian Front tabletop game I've ever played.

Just my humble opinion.

Yes, AVALON HILL was the great prime mover in wargaming; but, by the 1970s, its place as an innovator and trend setter was taken over by the rise of SPI and STRATEGY & TACTICS Magazine.

My nomination for the best Russian Front tabletop game ever comes from another wargame magazine, the late COMMAND Magazine. COMMAND produced the best Russian Front boardgame, in a magazine nonetheless, with the game PROUD MONSTER. It remains the best take on the Russian campaign in boardgaming. Good news is that the original designer (Ty Bomba) and the current successor to STRATEGY & TACTICS Magazine (DECISION GAMES) are talking about updating PROUD MONSTER (which is out of print and should be snapped up if you ever see it on sale in a gaming store).

[Les the Sarge 9-1b]

I think it's interesting to insert the comment, that some have said to me (indirectly via posting on a forum), that the naval simulation, was one of the few things they thought was slightly wrong with WiF actually.

Not that I want to slag WiF, because I own the entirety of that game as well for a reason, I liked it.

[jon_j_rambo]

You guys familiar with "Civil War"? That was an absolute blast & still selling today.

[J Wagner]

And how many of you remember the board game equivilent to patches?...remember all those great errata sheets that used to come out after a game hit the stands....The General and Strategy and Tactics always had errata supplements after players discovered "bugs" in the rules...

Then came the period when Avalon Hill tried their hand at solitaire games....remember RAID on ST. NAIZAIRE? I still have my copy of that one...it wasn't a bad game for it's time....

It's revisionist history to be overly critical of the games that were produced during that period...those were good times for a wargamer...pc only players will never truly understand.....

[JerseyJohn]

Andre --

Out of that list, in terms of sheer fun and replayability, The Russian Campaign was the best Russian Front tabletop game I've ever played.

Absolutely. They incorporated a lot of things they'd learned from the earlier efforts and had it all down perfectly by then.