From: pmccord@ucrac1.ucr.edu (Shaqfu) Subject: Tomorrow the World I've been trying to hammer out for myself the XTR game "Tomorrow the World". I originally reviewed it for BROG way back when the paper BROG still existed. The naval rules were terrible. Since then, Ted Raicer has published some unofficial but "sanctioned" naval rules which make the game much better. The game is a "hypothetical" to say the least coverage of a possible post-WWII war between Germany and Japan...assuming they both won their respective theatres, instead of losing the real war. The game map covers the whole world. The game's sequence of play is very fluid, and the new Naval rules, combined with the air and ground rules, are deceptively simple. Once you get into playing a myriad of possible moves open up from what appeared to be a simple situation. I know the old 3W first edition had a loyal following, but I was wondering if anyone else out there has tried this game and what they think of it. I like it alot, although it is taken some considerable work to make the Naval rules clear and workable. One problem area already is that the Naval units tend to dwindle down until one side has very few and the other has none...which has a dramatic effect on sea supply lines (as one side loses all ability). That means that the winner of a few decisive naval battles early on will usually win the game. And Japan has a tremendous naval advantage. From: Erich Schneider Subject: Re: Tomorrow the World pmccord@ucrac1.ucr.edu (Shaqfu) writes: > One problem area already is that the Naval units tend to dwindle down > until one side has very few and the other has none...which has a > dramatic effect on sea supply lines (as one side loses all ability). > That means that the winner of a few decisive naval battles early on > will usually win the game. And Japan has a tremendous naval > advantage. Given what I've read about modern naval combat, this is essentially true in reality. (Most of what I know is from _Fleet Tactics and Coastal Combat_ by Capt. Wayne Hughes.) The weaker side thus wants to avoid battle while weak and preserve their fleet in order to retain it as a potential problem that the side with the stronger fleet has to deal with (the "fleet in being" concept). This is what Germany did against Britain with its surface fleet during the World Wars. As for "the winner of a few decisive naval battles early on will win the game", well, that's what happened at Midway in 1942 ... after Midway it was pretty much all downhill for the Japanese, although the US still had a lot of work to do to "seal the deal". -- Erich Schneider erich@caltech.edu Caltech Information Technology Services From: pmccord@ucrac1.ucr.edu (Shaqfu) Subject: Re: Tomorrow the World Erich Schneider wrote in message news:... > Given what I've read about modern naval combat, this is essentially > true in reality. (Most of what I know is from _Fleet Tactics and > Coastal Combat_ by Capt. Wayne Hughes.) The weaker side thus wants to > avoid battle while weak and preserve their fleet in order to retain it > as a potential problem that the side with the stronger fleet has to > deal with (the "fleet in being" concept). This is what Germany did > against Britain with its surface fleet during the World Wars. Thx, interesting point. The Germans definitely play this way in the game...holding their fleet in/near to Germany proper, only venturing out to escort high priority transport missions to the USA. Under the "Ted Raicer" rules set, you can win the game as JP by taking the USA essentially, that will give you double the IPP of the GE player, a "Triumph of the Will" victory. Thus, GE must reinforce the east coast of the USA. The thing is, in this game, both players are saddled with fairly realistic rebuild rules. Carriers and BBs take 8 turns (2 years!) to rebuild. Subs take 3 turns (9 months). So during turns 1-3, the dwindling naval battles will take place, until one side or the other is left standing with a small naval force, and the other side hides in protective waterways (you can't move through enemy controlled straights). So the Med becomes a GE safe haven. You then are faced with a decision...do you plan on a long game, and rebuild your fleets immediately (paying IPPs)? This creates and arms race if both players sign on. OR, you could gamble, and forget the fleets, and say boldly: "I will win in the next 8 turns, before any new fleet builds arrive", and spend all your money on land units or TRS replacement. This is a viable move for Germany. > As for "the winner of a few decisive naval battles early on will win > the game", well, that's what happened at Midway in 1942 ... after > Midway it was pretty much all downhill for the Japanese, although the > US still had a lot of work to do to "seal the deal". Yeah, sink a few carriers and the war is over. That was a naval war however. TTW simulates a global ground, air and naval war. The naval rules and units make up only a very small % of the game, and, yet, the winner of those turn 1-3 naval battles (which are very dicey and hard to predict), will have a huge edge for the rest of the game, as your victorious remnant navy can put whole continents or theatres out of supply. The game is working as is, I was just wondering what other players' experiences were (or if anyone else has really put the "Ted Raicer" rules to the test). But I agree with your points, especially "fleet in being". The game does encourage this mentality, which is quite historical.