Video není dostupné.
Omlouváme se.
'Thinking about' A World At War - is it worth the effort? [GMT, 3rd Printing, 2018]
Vložit
- čas přidán 2. 12. 2022
- 'Thinking about' A World At War - is it worth the effort? [GMT, 3rd Printing, 2018]
Purchase A World At War here via my affiliate link: amzn.to/3O5kwyY
At this level of detail, having to consult the rules infinite times for almost every action and always having the feeling that we forgot something... a fantastic game but it doesn't compensate me. I have come to the conclusion for a long time that such complex and loaded games do not allow you to really play them, that is, to use the options and develop game strategies and propose things using the game tools. Simply, with such a high degree of complexity, you play defending yourself from the game itself, trying not to make mistakes and instead of thinking about what to do to try to win what you do is try to remember how the game works so as not to make mistakes.
However, it is a game with incredible work behind it.
These kinds of games are clearly entering the realm of what computer war games are meant for. A game like HoI3 covers this scope pretty much and the computer automation can make it easier to manage because there's no rules as much as mechanics to remember. The remembering is about understanding how the systems run which the computer does correctly. You don't have to read the rules ot make a choice, but you need to familiarize yourself with the systems to make smart choices. But I can just yeet it if I want to avoid wasting time.
I agree. Back in the day when this game was first published PC games were still relatively primitive in terms of graphics, and more importantly, screen size, board games still had the edge. No longer.
I’ll never stop playing board wargames, but the more complex monsters are a thing of the past for me.
@@BollocksUtwat The problem with HOI is that the AI is so bad
I agree. As a gamer, it is tempting to cover special cases but it quickly becomes unmanageable. The game designer needs to aim for what time the players are ready to invest in the game. After all, the only accurate representation of reality is reality itself...
I've played one of the East Front scenarios from Unconditional Surrender. It was a lot of fun, even though I lost.
There's something to be said for the power of abstraction in rules. When a boardgame begins to look like it should instead have been made a computer game to allow the computers to do the hard work of crunching numbers I begin to ask "why?"
Then again I have bounced off Grigsby games too because they seem to be trying to be the computer game version of this.
I would love to see more videos of A World at War, especially a playthrough of the Barbarossa campaign. My wife and I have slowly been learning the game over the last few months and it would be great to see where we are making mistakes. We've already watched all of Bruce's videos and basically anything else we could get our hands on! We just started getting into Barbarossa and the exploitation and attrition combat are very interesting.
Hope to see more!
I have a couple of games of this size and complexity on my own shelf. I regard them as something to be saved for being stuck in quarantine, or suffering through a post-nuclear winter, or being in prison. I imagine that to get the most out of it you'd need a focus that excluded all your other games. But then it almost becomes like study, work or a chore and you're doing it for it's own sake rather than because you're absolutely desperate to play it.
You need a special sense of humour to label those rules a "booklet" :D
I guess I'm really lazy. A World at War looks like some work projects which require months of focused thinking. While I love to think, I'm not too keen about spending that much time thinking about someone else's mind game. If I have to think that hard for that long, it has to be about my own creation. As a screenwriter, I've learned it's considered the height of arrogance to ask a producer to spend even two-hours reading a script. Apparently, game designers have no problem asking people to dedicate weeks or months to appreciate their handiwork. That seems pretty damn egotistical to me. I could probably listen to all of Wagner's Ring in the time it takes to play one game of a World at War. So, for me, the answer is clear. Unless you pay me ten bucks a counter, I'll stream some Best Picture films, and leave the ten sheets of unpunched counters to kids who haven't started working on their masterpiece yet. Time is a precious commodity in the real world. And there's something admirable about being a concise craftsman.
RUN, don't walk, away from AWaW!! The reason is found on the very first page of the (196 page!!!!) rule book. Why do the rules have to be so long? Because they don't work without a ridiculous number of exceptions and special cases. This game is very much a "rules by exception" design. In order to allow the system to recreate many of the historical occurrences of the war, they've had to create a multitude of unique, or rarely used, special rules which are a nightmare to learn and remember. At some point, the sheer number of exceptions and special cases should indicate that the real problem is with the core rule itself. Rather than step back and examine the basic, underlying design, the authors of AWaW doubled down on the tired mechanics of the mid-1970's in an attempt to keep the original design relevant.
AWaW is a game mired in the out-dated designs of the 1970's. Avalon Hill's Third Reich was a great game back in the late '70's, because there were so few alternatives. But the art of game design has advanced tremendously since the days of the wretched "Exchange CRT" and "Attrition Combat". The sheer number of tables and charts, along with the amount of bookkeeping required should be gigantic red flags that this game is not worth the trouble. And I speak as someone who has an unhealthy fetish for large, complex games. Trying to learn AWaW will make learning GOSS look like learning how to play Monopoly, and with a much less satisfying payoff.
While World in Flames is FAR from perfect, it is light years ahead of AWaW in terms of design. WiF gives you a much more detailed model of the military conflict than AWaW, and does so in a rule book half the size (which is copiously illustrated in full color and includes a ton of optional rules to allow you to tailor the game to your taste). There's even a lengthy series of well received tutorial videos to help you get up to speed with the Collector's Edition of WiF 😉. WiF does a much better job of seamlessly integrating the land, air, and naval elements into a cohesive whole. And WiF's production system is outstanding. Finally, there is no contest between the graphic design and beauty of WiF versus AWaW. It might be superficial and shallow, but when you are spending hundreds of hours over a game board, it really helps if it is something beautiful to look at.
My advice to you would be to sell AWaW for whatever you can, and put those funds towards the acquisition of WiF Collector's Edition Deluxe. Barring that, you'd be much better off playing Unconditional Surrender, or even Axis Empires: Totaler Krieg!/Dai Senso. Don't fall into the nostalgia trap. Cherish your fond memories of gaming A3R, but don't spoil them with an attempt to play AWaW. Only disappointment, frustration, and sadness lie down that path. Friends don't let friends play AWaW.
Yeah I've been watching your WIF videos too, makes me think I backed the wrong horse!
I wouldn't go this far, but it's totally correct that the game has been dragged down by a design philosophy that bandaids problems with more and more exceptions. The main reason I threw in the towel after decades was every single game seems to have a gotcha where someone missed a obscure rule and the game is ruined or has to backtrack. The game requires a huge amount of time invested, and a design where one chit being out of position can sometimes mean the destruction of the entire army. That high stakes, chess like thinking is a huge part of the appeal, but when plans are ruined due to a missed exception its infuriating.
Very interested in your thoughts on this. Personally, I landed on World in Flames, with a solid second place showing for The War, from Compass. AWAW comes in at probably #4 in this space... #5 if we include the long out of print ETO and PTO from SPI/TSR.
And don't forget Advanced ETO, Advanced PTO (both of which have rule sets as overblown as AWAW) and the Axis Empire / Dai Senso games.
Lots of big monsters in this class.
Honestly, taking BGG ratings with a healthy amount of skepticism is like breathing regularly. If you don't do it, you're going to regret it.
Honestly I’d like to see a play through. I enjoy your play throughs.
I newer found justification for embarking on this. Decided my time was better used getting WiF to the table.
I would love to see this. More Donnerschlag as well. Keep up the great work.
Such a relatable video. I suspect the challenge of conquering a rule set made for a binder and shoehorning 2000 counters into one tray will prove too much to resist. Bon chance, mon ami.
Hi Nathan. Do it, you won't be disappointed. Even playing the Barbarossa scenario won't expose you to the full game so unless you only set out to only play a few scenarios you're going to have to invest some time learning all the subsystems.
OMG. You are a brave man. This is one of the games that sit on the shelf daring me to play them. Its going to be a long time before I finish WIF though.
Probably easier to play Hearts of Iron IV on the PC. Let the processors do the number crunching. I may have held a different view 30 years ago but at 65 it’s HOI IV for me. I bought DG’s War in the Pacific, super large, super complex. Sat on my shelf for 10 years, took it down a few times, looked at the components, packed them away put it back on the shelf. One for retirement. 6 months after retiring I sold it. Unpunched and unplayed.
Got to question the ‘Booklet’ description. That’s a book, not a booklet. Of course I’m a long term ASL player, complexity isn’t a turn off, but the WAW would require multiple players, not easy to organise. PBEM, an option. That would increase playing time exponentially. Nope too big, too complex. There are easier options to scratch that grand strategic itch.
Yeah I used to play a lot of HOI IV back in the day, it's been a few years though.
Keep in mind the rules are repeated where appropriate. Sections are only needed when used.
I was just re-watching your videos on A Time For Trumpets, so I'm surprised to see you label any game as too complex :)
Nathan I appreciate you mentioning my analysis and I will just say that my thoughts are my own and clearly there are folks that love AWAW. You might very well enjoy it, especially if you ignore rules changes (I got myself wrapped around the axel there).
I almost bought the Storm Over Asia prequel game during the GMT sale but as I thought about it I ended up digging back into the AWAW rules again and yet again dismayed by it. The more straight forward A3R rules are in there but caked in special cases and exceptions. It feels like the rulset is now a ruleset based on exceptions rather than a cohesive set of systems that in execution cover WW2 well. The components and various bits are very attractive but its just not enough for me personally.
Maybe at the end of the day, I have just become a WiF fanboy. However, I have owned AWAW longer than WiF and WiF is sometimes described as more complex. So something hooked me there. Take that how you will and good luck either way!
Thanks Steve; though from what I've read, you are certainly not alone. It seems to be a very divisive title, and it's always important to have that balance of positive and negative.
Given its $195 price tag and the fact that I even balk at grand strategy games that are only half the world like Empire of the Sun, this will probably never make my wishlist, but who knows? Maybe a playthrough will change my mind.
Great stuff. Here's my 2 cents: RtL is a great battalion level system, and very interesting scenarios. Unfortunately, the sister game Roads to Moscow has not so interesting scenarios. RtL is really worth playing, however I would suggest downloading the RtM rules and using them for RtL (think of them like a 2nd edition rule set)
The Dark Valkey is a game that didn't work out for me, I just think chit pull at that scale is unwise, and there are problems with movement rates (unrealistic), and the game is super scripted.
Unconditional Surrender; a great game, quite unique, reasonably heavy, but I think maybe it lacks the thematic feel of the Prados line of games.
Re AWAW; only yesterday I was looking at WIF & AWAW on my shelf wondering if I have the time and perseverance to learn one of them, and if so, which one. So, yes you should chose AWAW as it suits my selfish ends, I will watch you struggle through it and then decide if I should bother, ha.
I think a core problem of a game like AWAW is that it is both a strategic- and operational-level game. This is both unrealistic and questionable. Contrast that with Empire of the Sun. EotS was a revelation to me. At the strategic command level one lacks control over the details of, for example, carrier engagements. This removes a huge amount of rules in a game like AWAW. The result is far more realistic, easier, and less time-consuming.
This is my most played strategic game. It’s in my top five for sure. Be sure to use Bruce’s videos great help in learning. In my favorite is world in flames, compass the war and AETO. I could go on. Play north. Africa then Barbarossa followed by coral sea. Then play Europe only scenario to learn.
The game is deep but is a fully integrated europe and pacific system . Enjoy your ride
Yeah I've been watching a lot of Bruce's videos for a while now. They're what's been tempting me to play!
How cool. Just yesterday I had exactly the same idea. The WWII-in-Europe grand strategy games I own (Unconditional Surrender, Axis Empires + Expansion) are very good. However, I think I could do with more complexity given certain aspects of the individual game, although AE (especially with the Schiffskrieg addition) comes pretty close to what I think is the sweet spot. Hence, I downloaded the rulebook for AWAW and saw the Bruce Harper video about the myths that surround the game. While I do not fear the 200+ page rulebook per se I still have serious doubts about the game because of the sheer number of moving parts within every subsystem. The procedures indeed seem overwrought and overengineered and it looks as if every aspect (research/diplomacy/intelligence) is a game for itself. An example would be the allocation of Combat Air Patrols: Why would I want to do such a thing in a grand strategy game? My criticism mainly revolves around the impossibility to discern the role which the player actually inhabits? Am I a political leader, theater commander, researcher, intelligence officer? Who am I? For individual theaters of WWII i.e. Soviet Union, France, Norway, North Africa, Atlantic etc. I resort to dedicated games that keep offering me great experiences (GMTs Case Yellow being a good example). I do take seriously the amount of dedicated players that rate the game highly but I suspect that AWAW has more of an aesthetical appeal to me than actual 'use' as a game/simulation mostly because it tries to do everything while falling short of providing the larger picture which should IMHO be the purpose of a grand strategy game. At least, that is my view which, of course, I try not to abide by dogmatically. If somebody proves me wrong I'm more than willing to change my mind. But from repeatedly looking at the comments, the rulebook, the reviews (positive and negative) I've come to the conclusion that this game offers a ton of complexity as an end in itself but not as a means to an end.
The problem I had with A World at War was that the different rules sub-systems were on so diverse levels of complexity and scale. So the naval rules (especially air-naval interaction) are incredibly detailed and can handle a single battle from start to finish whereas for example the land combat rules are on a very large scale and seem to cover a full operation, and in an abstract way. I loved A3R and though complex, its parts had not evolved in so completely different directions (yet). I applaud AWAW for its ambition and scope but in the end it was just too inconsistent for me.
Yes play World at war as it will inspire me to get mine out and learn it. Good luck.
I'm thinking I'll do two at once, A World at War and Dark Valley
Take a look at The War from Compass. Ernie Cooley does a great job of introducing topics over a variety of scenarios, and my understanding is that he wanted a non-lifestyle version of RaFotTR. I don’t the rules are any less dense, but it’s much a much easier path to grokking the game. Both a PTO snd ETO game. I have not looked at the expansion for Europe.
Continue to love this channel.
Yeah a few people have mentioned this as a top recommendation; I'm definitely adding it to my list, thanks!
Coincidently or not I actually raised the issue with of the rules´ lack of stability a couple of days ago in BGG when I was re-checking the game again. I'm still pondering investing in it (although I will most definitely play WiF which I already own) and like you If I decide to have a go at it will probably go with the rules as they come inside the box.
My copy is excellent for use as flower press. Wax paper, flowers, waxpaper, AWAW.
Haha, I'll have to let my daughter know! Maybe I can use it as a 'gateway': "Oh, have you considered opening the box on that flower press to see what's inside? What's that? A wargame? :-O"
Great WWII grand strategy game. My life wish is for someone to convert/adapt this game for PC with solid AI and multiplayer gameplay (online, by mail).
Hello Nathan, go for it regarding AWAW.
As for playing with the ruleset that comes in the box, I would also do the same. I actually do this with all my wargames to see if the rules that came in the box are actually a playable ruleset.
Dark Valley still my favorite all time whole east front game. I couldnt get into Roads to Leningrad
Don't do it! WIF Collectors Deluxe and/or Days of Decision III is a better system, better maps, better counters, far more players and therefore better support. Do you really want to stare for hours at all those cookie counter infantry units? If you don't like WIF for some unfathomable reason but have a hunger to learn new systems, I recommend the Death Ride series. And what happened to GOSS - you played the old SPI Atlantic Wall but GOSS Atlantic Wall is an absolute work of art. Get it even if you never intend playing it. In any event I will still watch whatever you decide as you are right up there in the art of You Tube presentations.
Oh yeah, I have Atlantic Wall [DG], it just feels even more massive than this for some reason.
WiF has some abstractions which are fun to play, but hard to connect to reality if the focus is simulation.
You almost have to be in the game over reenactment camp to like WiF...but then it's a fantastic game.
I think Barbarossa is very doable. See if you want to go on from there.
The medium rating for solitaire comes from the diplomacy and research rules.
I have that and the one “game” that’s more an expansion to it, Gathering Storm
I liked the idea of adding diplomacy.
The I realized that expansion only covers the European Theater and I’d have to buy a whole other “game” for the Pacific.
Then I dig into the rules some… and kinda lost steam.
I learned World In Flames without too much trouble (it just takes time).
This one _feels_ like it has the potential to do more than WiF in some ways, while being less in others,
but after reading rules and watching g videos by the designer and still finding it clunky and uncomfortable (if that makes sense)
I don’t know that I’ll ever actually play it
Go for it (AWAW).
Another one you should look at is Cataclysm by GMT. Marvelous game with a unique play system and tons of replay-ability. Very counter/marker light.
Yeah got it and played with friends.
Looks to me like this game would need the deluxe update akin to Field of Fire Deluxe with upgraded manual to ease new players in and make quality if life for veteran players better.
That's not a "pool"--it's an ocean! 😊
Ohh... Stalin's War.
I would be interested in hearing your opinion about that. I bounced of it.
As far as I understood, there's a card with "Winter Uniforms" which the Germans need to play before turn 4 (?). Otherwise the game odds change significantly ... but there's actually a chance that card doesn't even get drawn in time.
It's like starting a chess game by rolling a die and if you roll 5 or 6 you play without your queen.
I might have misunderstood that, but given the scale is roughly the same as WiF in Europe, I'd probably rather play the WiF Barbarossa scenario.
Yeah my copy is still in-shrink, I'm keen to check it out!
Have you played World in Flames by Australian design group? It’s another monster WWII game encompassing the entire war from Europe to Asia including Australia.
No I haven't had the chance.
On the one hand, I’d be interested to hear your opinion of AWAW, although it seems such a monster I can’t realistically see myself trying it. However, if you want to play Barbarossa I would suggest you try out Dark Valley first. It is my most played game, I really enjoy it, although it has some problems. Firstly, it is virtually impossible to win the Barbarossa scenario as the Axis. I’ve only done it when very poor Soviet defending let Moscow fall. Secondly, set up instructions in the playbook are utterly useless, however on BGG a very kind soul has done GMT’s job for them and created excellent Fall Blau, etc set up charts. In my view, the later scenarios are actually better than Barbarossa. Alternatively, play a campaign game and just ignore the early victory rule. If you do play Barbarossa then remember that the Germans have to be very aggressive, and not worry too much about going OOS.
I hope you did play and yes use the rules in the box work fine
Haven't played yet sadly...
@@WiseGuyHistoryif I ever come to Australia I will teach you . But in all honesty if I can get on some regular schedule I could teach you online
I find some of the rules perplexing such as the doubling of values on defense as I recall but attack values staying as printed. Historically attack was preferable to defense in WWII. If we do this why not print counters with a defense factor? I think it is probably in last place in regard to strategic WWII games. I do like the research system. It’s a mini monster game. I would have to say though all are challenging and I think each has a dedicated following. I like The War in first; World in Flames in second; War in Europe/Pacific in third and AWAW in fourth. True monsters TSWW is an overall great game; SPIs War in Europe and GDW start on Europa. They’re all good. Just what you like best. After 54 years of war games they’re all interesting and challenging.
Hi I am writing for a small suggestion.
I think you should try Dark Valley at some point because it checks many of your boxes if I am understanding your likings at all.
1)Eastern front check
2)Monster game check
3)Dark systems (which you like from your encounter with Dark Summer). Check
4) Interesting strategic dilemmas. Check
For Nr 4) just an example. You check supply when the supply chit is drawn. So you face a dilemma. Should I go a bit beyond the lines to encircle and risk the possibility to draw a supply chit and be left in difficulty? or I play it safe stay inside the lines but give the opponent the chance to organise and regroup?
Please if you choose Valley at some point remember to film it as well.
Cheers
Yep, I've decided to start clipping Dark Valley
That rule book is massive! Don't you enjoy naval warfare in general or just the method ATR used? Anyway hope to see you embark on Barbarossa, reading 19 sections is more doable than 150 pages I would presume lol. Good luck Nathan and take care :-)
With a few exceptions, I've never really been a fan of simulating naval warfare, particularly not in strategic games like this where it's often a massive headache for a small change.
Every time I look at a strategic WW2 boardgame I can't help but just think it'd be so much easier and better to play a PC game. War in the West/East/Pacific, Strategic Command, War Plan, The Operational Art of War scenarios, or Hearts of Iron. Or even just going through campaigns in Unity of Command 2. Granted if you have a dedicated opponent who play the game at least a few times with you then maybe it's worth it to pick a boardgame but outside of that scenario I've yet to find a high level WW2 game worth investing time in (and that includes skimming through the rules and loading some VASSAL modules to sample them).
Wair in the East/West unfortunately I think pushes the computer game envelope toward an equivalent level of nuttiness. Its just so overly intricate that I think it has the asme problem as these over engineered board games.
Gary Grigsby definitely believes in the idea that more detail at a finer level is a better game. Having tried to begin playing War in the Pacific I do'nt think I agree.
What I love about War in the East is that you can ignore a lot of that 'nuttiness/depth', you can just point and click and away you go. There's potential for depth, but it's not required to enjoy the game.
If you tackle AWAW, it's a huge mistake to use the paper rules. Not because of rule changes, errata, or any of that, but because the hyperlinks in the online rules make it so much easier to deal with and will literally save you hours. I've fallen out of love with the game for various reasons, but the online rules support and how they are maintained with extensive hyperlinks is the best I have seen. Also there are spreadsheets out there that help track all the various info and do the math for you.
Ah good to know, thanks!
God, I wish more builders of PDF wargame rulebooks would do this.
There’s a lot of valid criticism that can be leveled against AWAW. A lot of people bounce off the rules, and not because they are not smart enough or because they don’t put enough effort into it, but because the rules have serious flaws as a tool for learning the game. However, some of the criticism that is circulating about the game seems to come from people who were (understandably and justifiably) frustrated by the rules and who, as a consequence of that, maybe aren't in the best position to say what ends up being or not being a problem in practice.
The rules change once a year, around June 30. Changes are discussed continually throughout the year, and the changes that are approved are included in the new rules on the next June 30. It’s always clear what the rules are. This is not a game that you can put down for five years and then pick up again without having to learn some new rules and unlearn some old ones. That much is certainly true, and it would be a valid reason for not playing the game at all. But it is always clear what the official rules are.
The vast majority of the changes occur because someone notices an ambiguity or inconsistency in the rules, usually as a result of some kind of unusual and infrequent situation in an ongoing game. If the same situation occurs during your game, then it’s not like you have a choice of relying on the ambiguous rule as written on the previous June 30, rather than the clarification by the designer that came out since then, since the whole point is that the meaning of the rule as written is unclear. But in most cases the same situation that gave rise to the question won’t even occur in your game.
When there is a substantive change to a rule that is actually intended to change the way the game is played, it can appear any time during the year. There are not many of these, although any number more than zero is more than most other games have. If the new rule comes out after the most recent June 30 compilation and before you start a new game, I think you would always ask, but it would be natural to use it, since it’s going to be the rule going forward. Only if a new rule comes out during the middle of an ongoing game would there be a legitimate question of whether or not to use it, especially if either player has already made decisions in reliance on the previous rule, and I think the default here would be to not use the new rule if either player objects to it. Anyway, this was never a problem for me, and I have a hard time seeing it as a real issue.
So, it would be a bad idea (IMHO) to try to learn the game from the printed rules from four years ago. Frankly, it's not a great idea to try to learn the game from the rules on your own, but if that's what you want to do, at least use the version from June 30, 2022, which is the current version on the AWAW website. The 2018 rules are not easier or clearer or more stable than the 2022 rules, and if you like the game enough to want to play it against a live opponent, you won’t find anyone who is willing to use the 2018 rules with you. Also, I would skip the North Africa scenario and go straight to Barbarossa. Barbarossa is only like a 3 out of 9 in complexity. I didn’t play Third Reich past the 2nd edition but still found the land game very easy to pick up. The complexity is all elsewhere.
There’s a lot to be said in favor of the game, and a lot to be said against it. I played it almost exclusively for five or six years and spent a ton of time on the rules and the strategies before deciding ultimately that I didn’t want to play it anymore, so I’m not exactly the biggest fan of the game, but I do think that some of the criticism is misplaced.
Your response is exactly why the criticism is warranted, this is a lifestyle game and if you're comfortable with rules changing all the time then great. But most people aren't.
@@slowbiscuit I’m just saying, I didn’t find it onerous to keep up with the changes in the rules. Reading discussions of rules on the list (and especially how certain rules were intended to affect the viability of certain strategies) was more interesting to me than most of the threads I read on BGG now. YMMV, of course. My real point here is that it is nearly impossible to learn the games from the rules, and twice as hard to do it solitaire. You need to play multiple games with a variety of people, at least some of them intermediate or advanced players, to get a good grasp of the rules. In my games, there were rules mistakes in almost every turn, either ones I pointed out to the other player or ones that the other player pointed out to me.
There were a lot of interesting ethical dilemmas involving die rolls, because you had to be conscious of the fact that a good or bad die roll would affect how you felt about what you would have done if you had interpreted the rule correctly. These kinds of questions came up all the time. Like you made an attack thinking it was a 2:1, but it turned out that some of the units were not eligible to attack. Would you have made the attack knowing it was only 1:1? Sure, you say to yourself as you look fondly at your 6, or of course not, as you glare at your 1. What about the excellent (or terrible) result on the air attack that preceded it? Do you have to (get to) walk that back too? You can gain some insight into the power of motivated reasoning this way.
Anyway, that is not a problem playing solitaire. The problem playing solitaire is that there is no one to point out the many, many rules mistakes that you are (inevitably) making. This ties into the fact (I'm comfortable calling this a fact) that the game is chess-like in the sense that you make relatively few attacks per turn and usually know ahead of time whether or not they will succeed. This is very much true in Barbarossa. The combination of the overrun rules and the exploitation rules means that a mistake of a single factor on your defensive line can result in a complete, game-ending catastrophe. But it’s generally true of the game. It’s a great game if you play it correctly, and probably even better if you play it expertly (which I never did), but the learning curve is actually steeper than the 200+ page long rule book would suggest. Not that it can’t be fun flailing around helplessly for a few games, but it’s better to get a partner early and make some progress while flailing around.
I would love to see the A World at War East Front scenario, I'm in the same boat and miss Third Reich
Play it! I have A World at War but I'm too intimidated to play it.
"The evolving rulebook, the changing rulebook over time." This has been the case for almost *30* years. Think about that. Bruce and his closest buddies are good guys, but they've been possessed by a curious obsession a major portion of their lives. I learned over 25 years ago I'd rather play ten or twelve other games in the time required to play AWAW once.
Yeah, I wish I had the time to invest. I would love to dive into a game like this, even with evolving rules, but it's immensely time-consuming.
@@WiseGuyHistory Why? To simulate WWII? Suggesting AWAW is even a remotely accurate simulation is laughable. For fun? Play Triumph & Tragedy with Conquest & Consequence instead for a small fraction of the playtime and rules overload.
Roads to Leningrad, I should think.
Play it
If you just play the eastern front, AWAW is just a more refined 3R. Don’t be daunted by the rulebook. It is just verbose, not complicated. At its core it is still 3R/A3R.
I'd play it if it was computerized.
This gives me anxiety.
World at war would simply be too much for me, i have lately rethought on games on wishlist and rulesbook and gaming time this much is just uff.... Would be very interested hearing about Stalins war, myself being eastern front fan. Dark valley didnt like that much, too many exceptions on turn by turn basis. Russia besieged deluxe edition is still my number 1 eastern front game.
For how expensive they are, at least the map should be made of cardboard and not paper.
Paper maps have long been standard in wargaming, with cardboard/mounted maps being a more expensive exception. For large games like this, a mounted map would add quite a lot to the cost. GMT often sells mounted maps separately.
Just no. Nostalgia is best enjoyed in memory. I too have a yen to play a grand strategic game again. Did the WW1 Balance of Powers recently which was a lot of fun as a 4 player and it's whett my appetite for more. And I too remember Third Reich and Advanced Third Reich with a lot of affection. Who knew what excitement could be had with BRP management. But for me, it was of its time and that time has passed.
It feels like a vanity project. If 10% of the rules cover 90% of the action where was the developer to tame this monster into something that fit within the human brain? The effort expended to enjoyment coefficient just seems too high.
My vote would go to Unconditional Surrender if you want grand strategy or Dark Valley if you are merely hankering for Eastern Front.
If you tackled this you'd probably disappear from uploading new videos for a long while, which would be a shame!
This looks too oppressive. Just play 4th Edition 3rd Reich.