From: arseno@phy.ulaval.ca (Henri H. Arsenault) Subject: Third Reich Review (sort of) All right, after playing for a week, I guess I now have a pretty good grip on this game. I have had no crashes yet playing on dos on a 486/66. As I posted here earlier, my previous comments were based on watching the computer playing itself for a couple of scenarios and a campaign game. This makes it easier to see the AI's weaknesses, and I previously commented on the AI weakness in playing Italy. First a few comments about the game. The game is practically identical to the Third Reich board game. A few things like Turkey activation are not implemented, but the rules seem to be exactly the same, right down to the rounding down of fractions for die throws (you can even have the dice throws displayed). It is a very complicated game, and be prepared for one of the steepest learning curves that you have ever seen (unless you have played the board game recently). There are two excellent manuals, and the readme file gives quite a few corrections to the manuals. You have to fight on three fronts, which requires a considerable amount of concentration: the battles on the three fronts (Eastern, Western and Mideterranean) are practically independent wars, but not quite. I often find myself making serious mistakes, like forgetting to move units on a front. Moving back to the Russian Front after dealing with a British offensive in Africa that involved an attempted armored encirclement, a sea invasion with sea and air interceptions and counter-interceptions, can require a considerable shift in focus and effort of memory to remember what the hell was going on before. It doesn't hurt to check the bottom of the screen to see in which of the thirty or so phases you are in; I have found myself ending the movement phase in Italy only to realize too late that I had not moved in Western Europe yet. I suppose that this simulates screwups at OKW...But the computer is pretty good at prompting you, although it's comments are sometimes not appropriate (saometimes it will say it can't find a path when the move is simply illegal). My worst mistake was on the very first move of my present game as the Axis with the 1942 scenario, when I forgot to move units into Sevastopol and adjacent to the crossing point from the Black Sea to the Caucasus despite having eleven points of units within two hexes. Had I taken Sevastopol and advanced to the Caucasus myself, this would have forced the Russians to remove units from the front to protect the Caucasus and to prevent me from cutting off the supply source from Persia; units there could also participate in an encirclement attempt. Instead the Russians SR'ed a unit into Sevastopol and crossed a unit from the Caucasus, thus isolating my units, forcing me to attack at unfavorable odds on the next turn or lose them; I lost the four units, and had to remove some units from the Russian front to cover my rear and deal with this situation. So instead of gaining territory and new threats and forcing the enemy to weaken his line, I did it to myself. I can imagine Hitler's reaction: "Dumbkopf! Bring me the idiot who put this stupid Canadian in charge of Army Group South!"... The computer is giving me a really tough time. I took Leningrad on the first turn without losses (lucky die throw - you should expect an exchange), but I still haven't been able to take Moscow: I surrounded it three times, and each time the computer Russian broke my circle with the two spaces it almost always gets from an attrition attack [in an attrition attack - the other kind of attack is an offensive- the defender is forced to remove a certain number of units from the area (defender's choice) and to give up up to two hexes adjacent to attacker's units (attacker's choice)]. I have come to the conclusion that armored encirclements are impossible to maintain in the middle of the enemy's army - he can always break the encirclement with an attrition, assuming that enough units are in contact on the front. It is now Winter 43, and due to the failure of my last offensive to take Moscow, a huge Russian salient is reaching all the way to Minsk. I may have to go on the defensive. The British are a lot better at playing in Africa than the Italians. They are aggressive there, and tough to beat. As the Italians, I have shipped in every unit possible into Africa, and it is only because the British lost heavily when they had a couple of unlucky dice throws that I have the upper hand there - but my units are still facing two British armored corps at El Alamein, and it is uncertain if the Italians can get by the Quattara depression before the scenario ends. And if the Americans decide to send some units to Africa, the Italians' very survival there could be compromised - not to mention Italy, which has been almost stripped of units for the African campaign. The Allies have got a foothold in France. They took Paris, but I took it back, but Allied units are piling up on the beaches, and I must soon make a choice between falling on the defensive and losing France, or an all-out offensive to throw the Allies into the ocean, but if the latter fails, I will have almost nothing left on the Western front and I wil have no choice but to go on the defensive everywhere. Although I would have to lose a lot of territory to not get a decisive victory (only 16 cities are required, and I have almost 30), I would consider it a moral defeat if I could not hold the Russians in Russia. But it is only 1943 and the Americans are already in France... As expected in a computer game, the AI is no genius, but it usually plays a creditable game. I have found it able to exploit sloppy play a number of times. In sum, if you like complex wargames, this is probably the best grand strategy wargame around. Considering the time it takes to learn the game and the scenarios that you can play from either side, chances are that you will get your money's worth before you tire of the game. If you are a beginner, you may find the game a bit overwhelming. It would be nice for beginners if you could get the computer to play one or two fronts while the player concentrates on a single front. Henri