Quick blurb for Third Reich PC fans

[Les the Sarge 9-1b]

I have had the pleasure of an actual mint copy of Third Reich PC (still can't understand why my non wargamer buddy bought it though, bargain bin or not).

Suffice it to say, and despite the angry protests of some of the more vocal copywrite crowd re: free downloadable old wargames at places like Underdogs, I have had zero success getting the real thing to install eh.

While on the other hand, while it is a slow tedium to install the downloadable file from Underdogs (multiple zips are never thrilling), it at least works at the end of the process (it has been tested on both XP and 98 SE).

For those interested in TR PC, you might find (if you have the real thing, but have not installed it recently), that the Underdogs file might actually be your only option.

It's not to obvious how to install the Underdogs file though.

Check this thread out (it has a very well explained process if you require it).

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=32839

Currently (in my opinion), grand strategy on the computer (for the thinking player, not just dolts with unlimited cash), the only useful options are currently TR PC (even if the game is a bit long in the tooth and not really A3R), and SC.

Anything else grand strategy, is probably a waste of your funds (and probably your time).

[Konstantin V. Kotelnikov]

I had purchased this game when it had first come out. Being a long time 3R and A3R player. Played it a couple times. Then let it collect dust for years.

The original was so buggy it was unplayable. Getting caught in continous loops and locking all the time. Even the patch barely helped playability.

Best thing about it was I kept the original box. When I dumped it on ebay a few years ago that made a huge difference and it sold for nearly $100.

Clash of Steel was a definate improvement, and SC an improvement on that. Can't wait for SCII.

[KDG]

There have been 9 patches out since the release. It is now on 1.38. Runs real well, the AI has been beefed up, etc. I had no problem getting it to run from the disc on Windows 98. I prefer SC, but you can play 3R much quicker.

[yoharv]

If you are having trouble with sound...I did get my Third Reich sound to finally work. I used a emulator (VDM Sound). I dowloaded it @ zdnet.com: VDMSound-2.0.4-WinNT-i386.msi

l8r

harv

[Les the Sarge 9-1b]

Was that sound problem with XP? because my XP OS won't make the sounds come out correct, while it runs the sounds just fine in 98 SE.

I must inject a differing opionion though on the CoS and SC comments vis a vis continuing improvements.

Regardless of its assumed merits (technical or otherwise), CoS is unwelcome on my computer.

I have frankly never understood the fascination.

I didn't like the interface at all among other things.

And if a computer doesn't make running a game easier than a board game, then the game will "suck" period.

Which is precisely why I think saying SC "looks like CoS" as a comment, is wasted on me. Hubert can design a good interface, and that was not the case with CoS.

Now if SC as a game, looks like CoS, then we have established that neither is the equal of TR at the gaming level.

TR might have seasons that annoy some, and it might not have overly complicated overly detailed units, but this is a grand strategy setting, not an operational one.

Those looking for a lot of the wishes and wants for SC2 might actually be better off with the Europe Aflame scenario made for The Operational Art of War game.

Where detail is the whole point of the game.

The last thing I am looking for in a SC2 release, is an operational looking experience.

I might actually be looking for some elements to be more abstracted, and not even used as units in the game.

I for instance really don't like having to base my Atlantic warfare campaign, on moving around two sub counters that do nothing to simulate the submarine war.

[Shaka of Carthage]

Les the Sarge 9-1b

I agree with you that SC has to be careful about the suggestions regarding changes, and not lose focus of what it is. But there are quite a few things, even at the Grand Strategy level, that should be changed so that SC is not relegated to only being considered a "WWII Lite" or B&P game.

[Les the Sarge 9-1b]

It IS WWII Lite and it IS a beer and pretzels game.

Now that said, who said that was a negative thing.

I like hopelessly complicated (explains why I own the whole ASL system).

But I also like well done and simple as well (explains why I don't have a problem playing Axis and Allies on the computer as well).

SC is not A3R and I highly doubt Hubert is even remotely interested in making it into a game of that sort.

But then why should he.

Refinements, yes there might be some refinements for SC2.

But there is no reason to assume layering more onto a game is defacto an automatic improvement.

I have seen perfectly good games get ruined by not knowing where to stop more than once.

[JerseyJohn]

Pretty much agreed with the main points, Les. Getting back to a quick comparisson of COS and SC:

I liked the Assault attack in COS where several units attack a defender at once from different hexes and the defender can still be attacked by individual units.

I liked the airborne units in COS adding their abilities to assaulting units and felt it should have been possible to build a few more of them (for example, where were the British Airborne?).

I liked the Naval War abstraction in COS better specifically for the convoy war aspect. It should be possible to combine the two in SC, as someone suggested a while back, using the Box method for commerce raiding and leave the hexes for individual naval piece movement/combat.

I liked the production schedule in COS; units should not appear upon whim to wealthy nations.

I liked the weather and especially the Russian Winter Rule in COS.

I liked the idea of partisan activity affecting frontline supply in Russia and suppressed by rear area garrisons of a corps in each occupied city. The SC method is also good but the COS approach gets a very slight nod.

I didn't like the way Gibratar was almost impossible to capture, in COS.

I didn't like the total annihlation of failed amphibious units in COS; when it involved armies and corps it became ridiculous.

I didn't like the Russia prepares for War timetable in COS. The USSR shouldn't even consider it till mid '43.

I didn't care for the COS map for the same reasons I don't care for the similar SC map. It can use a few more hexes south and should include all of Scandanavia -- I know, Shaka , it's an unreasonable request and I'm not requesting it, just stating an observation.

And that's about it. As several comparrisons with COS have already been made I'm fairly certain this material is appropriate to this thread . If not let me know and I'll lift it to a new Forum.

[ February 18, 2003, 06:04 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Hueristic]

Originally posted by Les the Sarge 9-1b:

I have seen perfectly good games get ruined by not knowing where to stop more than once.

You can say that again.

[Hueristic]

double post. stinking connection sux

[ February 18, 2003, 05:33 PM: Message edited by: Hueristic ]

[Shaka of Carthage]

Les the Sarge

We both agree that adding complexity into a game does not give you an automatic improvement. I'm not advocating that SC reach the complexity levels that ASL does. Nor should it turn into a "High Command" or "Hearts of Iron".

However, the entertainment value would not be lost (and may even be increased) by adding some enhancements to accurately portray the period.

[Les the Sarge 9-1b]

Originally my first feelings were "no stacking, this sucks".

I still moan about it under my breath a bit I suppose.

But if we added all of JJs comments from his most current post, we get amazingly close the playing TR PC.

Now if I want to play TR PC, I might as well play TR PC hehe.

Granted, a lot of JJs comments would not hurt if put in SC2. I didn't see anything wrong with them.

Because SC is not identical in all respects to TR. The most notable being TRs seasonal turn aspect.

I like the seasonal turns by the way. I also like the turn structure in SC as well. They work nice for both games.

Must admit my first serious (read I was actually trying, not fiddling) attack on Poland though surprised me hehe. I am used to one maybe two turns then poof no Polish.

So when they were still there that one game on the 4th turn I was scratching my head thinking what the heck they ain't dead yet.

Takes a while getting used to the fact that the game uses more turns.

I still though, return to the simple fact, my main beef with CoS, was the game has a crummy interface. Whatever it's merits (technical wise), it is just no competition for well designed software.

If Hubert had shamelessly copied, yes outright copied CoS, but used his clearly decent talents to make a good interface, ya know, I would still not be offended.

I am only now playing TR PC, because in spite of it's age, the visual appeal the ease of play appeal, is not a hassle. It IS indeed old software. It does indeed play better in 98SE than XP (although it does run in XP, 98SE does do it better).

Back when CoS was released, I suppose it was considered great. That was then, this is now.

I am not likely going to rave about 8 tracks, 5.25 floppies, AM radio, Black and White TV, and electric typewriters much either heheh.

[ February 19, 2003, 12:09 AM: Message edited by: Les the Sarge 9-1b ]

[JerseyJohn]

Les,

You've got the right take on it; I'm not advocating any of the ideas but wanted instead to list all the things about COS I did or didn't like that might be relevant to SC, throwing them into the current suggestion mix.

You're right about the COS interface, it takes a lot of getting used to.

[ February 19, 2003, 12:19 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[General Brock]

SC is like Reese's peanut butter cups. A combination of COS and Panzer General. And it tastes great together!

[gazza_35]

What settings do i need to set to run 3R on XP. Installed everything ok including 1.38 patch but cant get the program to run.

[Les the Sarge 9-1b]

Gazza, how did you install the game?

I attemped to install the game both via a genuine original cd, as well as via the download at Underdogs.

Regardless of my attempts (I used the whole schlameal on it), the original cd has told me to "get bent".

I had no trouble with the free download from Underdogs though (which mystifies me to no end).

It has a convoluted install required thanks to the myriad zippped files that must be perfectly uncompressed and sorted out though.

But if you are running XP, and download the Underdogs file, and then reference the post that can be found at the link in my first post of this thread, you should have no trouble.

I didn't do anything odd with the insall. No XP jump through hoops tricks or anything.

Guys please take note also. The Underdogs route requires you launch game from within game directory, it doesn't like shortcuts being made.

Here is the link to the Underdogs copy of the game.

http://www.the-underdogs.org/game.php?id=1153

As with a lot of things, sometimes a game at Underdogs is there one moment and not the next. If you have a passing interest, get it now. Occasionally someone acquires the rights to a game, and then it gets pulled off Underdogs.

[zappsweden]

Have anyone of u tried Storm Across Europe (on Amiga or pc)?

It had very simple rules but was also very fun (at leist in multiplayer). Unfortunately, the game included a cheating Russian AI, no option for AI to be Germany and only hotseat play.

Particulary I liked the production and research things in the game.

If only someone would make a "sequel" to that game with TCP/IP options and everything

[gazza_35]

Tried from original CD I have..will try from the website you gave thks

[General Brock]

I really liked Storm Across Europe when it came out. It was really the only game of it's kind for the C64 (ahhh I adore my 64) Some ppl have given it a bad rap but I thought it was very good.