From: vykingz@ix.netcom.com Subject: GDW Third World War Hi, Prior to encountering Ted's Great War, TTW was my favorite game/series. I've played the combined 4 game set 3 times, and the individual games a couple each. I enjoyed the combined matches the most. A member of our club had a 5 x 10 ping-pong table his family wasn't using, so we could leave it set up between game days. We played through turn 6 twice, turn 4 the other. It does tend to move slowly, but we felt (or at least I did) that it was worth the effort, though it's relevance in post-Berlin Wall times is questionable. The WP needs to get a good jump early on, especially in the Central Front, as air, supply, and declining troop quality work against them in the long run. With persistance and a little luck, however, the WP can find himself in a position to win by turn 5. In the Central Front, he should seek to envelope rather than use brute force, and careful use of the turn sequence in crucial. What air power he has left should be used to strike NATO ground units. The North is a side show, but if the NATO player isn't careful, the WP player can capture a significant number of airfields and bases, and a shot at collapsing Norway could present itself with the turn 3 or 4 reinforcements. In the Balkans, its really just a grind; Instanbul can be taken but not quickly, unless the NATO player slips up badly. If the Persian Gulf game is added, the job becomes easier, because Turkish loses there are easier to inflict, and can cause them to collapse rather quickly. The PG is very frustrating for the WP, because their troop quality is so poor, especially after the US and Israelis enter. It adds a lot of flavor to the game though, because of the political variability. As far as errata goes, it was taken care of by the time PG was published, as far as I know. I do know that someone was working on using the 'cannon counting' method to come up with units for the Central American theater, though I never saw it with my own eyes. It seems like the sort of game that would lend itself to that sort of homebrew updating, though, especially the political component in PG. Anyone wanna model a Russian- Ukraine war?! How 'bout another Gulf War, with Russia, Iraq, and Iran allied? Just talking about it whets my appetite to play; what do you think about playing the system with ADC? It might work, except for the air war. Pretty hard to play poker by e-mail! Maybe when 'real-time' wargaming happens. Thanx, Karl From: John Best Subject: Re: GDW Third World War Karl was writing about GDW's TWW (Third World War) series: >Hi, > > Prior to encountering Ted's Great War, TTW was my favorite game/series. >I've played the combined 4 game set 3 times, and the individual games a couple >each. That's a heck of a lot more than I've played it. I agree that it's fun (but see some recent impressions below). >I enjoyed the combined matches the most. A member of our >club had a 5 x 10 ping-pong table his family wasn't using, so we could leave it set up between game days. We played through turn 6 twice, turn 4 the other. It >does tend to move slowly, but we felt (or at least I did) >that it was worth the effort, though it's relevance in post-Berlin Wall times is questionable. I have just the Germany game set up right now. This is the first time I've come back to the game in about four or five years. It's interesting to see how one's perceptions of a game change over time. I have really enjoyed this series in the past (actually, I've played only the Germany game (a few times), and the Norway game, and a game with those two combined. I've set up the first three games (minus Persian Gulf that is), but I decided it would be too much for me to play). Playing it now, I'm struck, as Karl mentioned, by how glacial the pace is. Of course, I'm slowing down too, but even taking that into account, the turn sequence with its impulses, subimpulses, and first and second echelons is really labyrithine. (sp). I never noticed before how poorly written the rules are. I don't mean they are unclear, exactly; what I mean is there are many sentences that are just not very well constructed. And then I've become aware that I just have more and more trouble playing games in which the hex scale is as large as it is in this system (45 km I think). Terrain starts to become really abstract at that scale. And, since I'm kvetching, here's another one: My impression is that almost all of the movement in the game comes on the flanks, that is, in the other games, mostly in the Norway game. What the Pact gains in Germany, after the first turn or two, is, at least in my games, limited to a hex here and there. I think this is interesting in the light of the WWI trench warfare discussion we had on this list sometime in the last 6 months or so. One of the knocks on trench warfare games, (of which only a few exist by the way) is that there is no movement, making it boring to play the game. Yet this series gets high marks, even though the rate of frontal movement in the Germany game is very slow. For example, if you could advance frontally at a rate of one hex per turn, as the Pact player you could be almost all the way to Stuttgart in eight turns (the length of the standard game). But I think it's unlikely that the Pact player is going to accomplish anything like that, given reasonable Nato play, and anything other than remarkable luck. Yet we seem to like this game. That's a little curious. Just to balance things a little, I certainly admit that there's a lot about the game to like. For example, the appearance of the counter set. I don't think anybody in the business did a standard Nato symbol counter set better than GDW did in its prime. Then there's the integration of the air war and ground combat. I don't like the sequencing of events the way it is described in the rule book, but I think the effects are really cool. And then there's the fact that there is a lot of unit differentiation in the counter mix. Right down to something like the Netherlands F-16 counter has an air superiority rating that is one point lower than the Belgian F-16 counter, cuz the Niederlanders presumably train less. Who knows if that's accurate or not, but at the game level, you gotta love it. > The WP needs to get a good jump early on, especially in the Central Front, [interesting and thought-provoking analysis snipped] >It seems like the sort of game that would lend itself to that >sort of homebrew updating, though, especially the political component in PG. Anyone wanna model a Russian- >Ukraine war?! How 'bout another Gulf War, with Russia, Iraq, and Iran allied? I went so far as to make some Iraqui counters back in '91, but I never followed through with the rest of the design. Thanks Karl for offering your thoughts on this game, and thanks for reading. John Best jlbest@tuscola.net From: John Best Subject: Re: GDWs Third World War A few days ago Glenn wrote about GDW's Third World War series: > >1. At present I am involved in playing GDWs TWW series (combined game). >To date I have been the NATO player on two occasions and have suffered >terribly from WP surprise attacks each time. Even allowing for my poor >play, my impression is that the surprise attack option is too powerful and >there is little disincentive for the WP player not to undertake the >surprise attack. > >2. In an attempt to generate general discussion of this game, does anyone >have any ploys to mitigate the WP surprise attack ? I would also be >curious to hear of any other impressions on this matter. > With regard to 1. When you say "combined game", I'm not sure if you mean all four games put together--I guess that's the only reasonable interpretation though. I don't know what the surprise effects are in the other games, but in the Germany game, the surprise effects are limited to the first echelon movement phase of the first impulse of the Pact. So they are not very durable effects. It basically means that the Pact guys don't have to pay for the ZOC costs. I don't really see the rule as unbalancing the game too much in favor of the Pact. In fact, my problem is usually the opposite--my Pact guys are tough for a turn or two until their accumulated disruption points are so great that they are giving away a two odds column shift on all their attacks. I agree with the other poster who pointed out that the Pact's only real hope of victory is to push their Category A units as far forward as they can go, disregarding any Nato counterattack potential. With regard to 2. As the Nato player, do you make the most of Rule 21C (Nato forward movement)? Using this rule in my last play, I got as many eligible Nato guys into the front line as I could, and this gambit *really* put the kibosh on the Pact offensive. In general: My largely negative comments about the game a few weeks ago landed me on Web-grognards, and I guess that's ok. I like the game--really I do. But there are some things about it that just seem so weird. For example, from the US perspective, it seemed like all we heard about Germany during the 70s and 80s was how overwhelmingly outnumbered the Nato forces were. But if you count just the raw number of units in TWW, there aren't that many more Pact counters than Nato--heck, there may not be *any* more Pact than Nato. And if you look at the qualitative differences, in terms of each unit's effectiveness rating, that goes all Nato's way too, on the average. And then if you take into account the evaluation of combat strengths, Nato gives away little in that department too. In fact the US units in the game are just plain badass, and I mean bad ju-ju for any Pact guys to tangle with. So what gives? Thanks for reading. John Best jlbest@tuscola.net From: Allan Rothberg Subject: Re: GDWs Third World War Allan chimed in with: John Best wrote: > > A few days ago Glenn wrote about GDW's Third World War series: > > > >1. At present I am involved in playing GDWs TWW series (combined I agree with the other poster who pointed out that the > Pact's only real hope of victory is to push their Category A units as far > forward as they can go, disregarding any Nato counterattack potential. Absolutely! The two armies deployed in Poalnd as well as the turn 3 reinfs can help to shore up weak flanks. Force NATO to go reactive. If you're worried about NATO is going to do to you, you've lost already. > > With regard to 2. As the Nato player, do you make the most of Rule 21C > (Nato forward movement)? Using this rule in my last play, I got as many > eligible Nato guys into the front line as I could, and this gambit *really* > put the kibosh on the Pact offensive. I can't see any other choice for NATO. As above, conceding the frontier to the WP is as good as throwing in the towel. In general, the WP has to carefully plan his attacks so as to be able to take full advantage of those 2nd Echelon Attacks. I have found the biggest problem for the WP is getting tied up in assaulting cities. Screw 'em! Let fatigued units cordon them and later echelons reduce them. I have found that the game usually hinges on whether or not the WP can break the Weser river line early in the game. The terrain just west of there is just lovely tank country with few cities and no rough terrain. And just beyond that, the Ruhr and, dare I say it, yes the Rhein. Thus, it is usually the good ol' Brits who have to hold out. Fortunately, they have the best rating in the game, an 8. The most "combined" game I ever played was the 3 European front games, but, as would be expected, Scandanavia and the Balkans become grinding matches down the Norweigian coast or trying to batter your way into Constantinople. Still, all in all, a load of fun. Allan From: Glenn Subject: GDW's TWW 1. In the combined game (all 4) there is an option for the Soviet player to undertake a "surprise" attack. This prevents the NATO player having forward movement and Norwegian deployment. However, only the Soviet units and a/c operate, with other WP nations not active. Unfortunately, this allows the Soviets to easily over-run undefended POMCUS sites (which are in range of Soviet airmobile units). Also several US divisions normally available at start are removed and their POCMUS sites substituted, again undefended. This surprise turn is in addition to the normal 6 GTs before the WP suffers logistic breakdown. From my experience (limited) this appears far too powerful with little disincentive and so far has proven a decisive game winner for the WP. From: KTrain9003@aol.com Subject: Re: GDWs Third World War In a message dated 98-02-04 22:02:47 EST, John Best writes: > In general: My largely negative comments about the game a few weeks ago > landed me on Web-grognards, and I guess that's ok. I like the game--really > I do. But there are some things about it that just seem so weird. For > example, from the US perspective, it seemed like all we heard about Germany > during the 70s and 80s was how overwhelmingly outnumbered the Nato forces > were. But if you count just the raw number of units in TWW, there aren't > that many more Pact counters than Nato--heck, there may not be *any* more > Pact than Nato. Not having pulled the game out of storage in a while, I'm a little rusty...but I do seem to recall that by and large the WP units are stronger than *most* of their NATO opponents: only the German, US and Brit units are really comparable to the WP Cat A units, while the Benelux and Danish units (to say nothing of the French) are generally weaker in combat values *and* proficiency... > And if you look at the qualitative differences, in terms of > each unit's effectiveness rating, that goes all Nato's way too, on the > average. And then if you take into account the evaluation of combat > strengths, Nato gives away little in that department too. In fact the US > units in the game are just plain badass, and I mean bad ju-ju for any Pact > guys to tangle with. So what gives? Thanks for reading. The problem is that not all the US units start on the map, and if the WP player is really gutsy the reinforcement US units may never show up. Seventh Army, BAOR, and the Bundeswehr simply can't cover the whole front and the Dutch/Francophone units are not that good. All in all, the WP has a window of opportunity within which they can smash NATO's defenses. If they don't seize that opportunity, they get ground down by NATO reinforcements which are qualitatively superior to the Cat B and Cat C divisions coming out of the reserve depots. Kevin Trainor