Game: Wacht Am Rhein II

Image

WatchmanX2000 — 2008-05-16T22:15:01+00:00

Somewhat higher resolution image of the box cover

Image

WatchmanX2000 — 2008-05-16T22:07:45+00:00

Clear better resolution copy of back of box

Thread: Re: Wacht am Rhein 2

nyhotep — 2008-03-31T12:38:12+00:00

I don't have the game, but looking through the consolidated rules here on BGG:

Mechanised or motorised units can use Strat moves. [5.3.0] Remember, leg units (and German artillery) can spend truck points to become motorised. [7.9.2]

Units can enter using tactical or PA mode but must must arrive 1 turn later, anywhere within 3 of the original entry hex. [22.1.1]

British units always enter the map motorised (without spending any truck points). [7.9.2f]

Image

Osprey — 2008-03-16T08:29:13+00:00

Scenarios & Rules Books

Image

Osprey — 2008-03-16T08:27:56+00:00

German & US Record Tracks

Image

Osprey — 2008-03-16T08:22:52+00:00

Composite Components

Image

Osprey — 2008-03-16T08:21:08+00:00

Box Front & Back

Image

paulbean — 2008-01-09T22:20:43+00:00

Wacht am Rhein II at ConSim Expo 2005

Thread: Re: Quick Comments

jchuntingt — 2007-12-28T19:36:28+00:00

Not sure where you come up with (and I paraphrase) "owners of both editions being dissatisfied." I have owned and played WAR since the first edition came out and it is probably one of my top five favorite wargames. Yes, there were some problems with the original edition, however, the "standard" errata cleared up many (most?) ssues and made the game more playable.

I suppose from my standpoint (and I followed the "reworking" from almost the day it was announced) was that a decision was made to effectively completely redo the game. When first discussed the general talk was that they were going to update the graphics (probably my main "complaint" with the original was that the map was rather ugly), cleanup the rules, tweak the order of battle and polish a few other points.

Obviously this is NOT what was done. The larger disappointment (I guess I could live with a redesign) was that they obviously botched the job. They took what is perhaps the most playable of all the late 1970s monster games and turned it into . . . (well, my vocabulary falls short, but perhaps "monstosity" is the best word - pun intended).

When first announced I am certain that I was a prime canidate to purchase the game. I even paid more for an unpunched copy of the original than they are asking for the new version! Now, however, after becoming aware of how extensively it was reworked and then just how bad the final product is I have a hard time imagining I will ever own a copy of this game (okay, if someone wants to give me a copy, but otherwise . . . .)

Anway, that's my $.02

Image

Alphawolf — 2007-12-11T07:16:51+00:00

Scan of CS Allied - Sheet 4

Image

Alphawolf — 2007-12-11T07:15:31+00:00

Scan of CS Allied - USA 3

Image

Alphawolf — 2007-12-11T07:14:36+00:00

Scan of CS Allied - USA 2

Thread: Re: Improving Wacht am Rhein

joeyoust — 2007-11-17T08:54:58+00:00

using specific ammo point expenditures would also increase the counter density and cost-an additional sheet would be required just for ammo markers. Note that a player can specifically keep a select few units supplied with ammo if he is willing to burn ammo points for this purpose instead of maintaining the army level ammo value.

Joe Youst

Thread: Re: Improving Wacht am Rhein

Darksan — 2007-07-27T04:05:06+00:00

Have you played Korsun Pocket? It used the Wacht am Rhein (1st edition) system, and added artillery ammo points.

Thread: Improving Wacht am Rhein

7arm — 2007-07-26T18:05:58+00:00

One of the things I admire about this game is the way it accounts for just about all the factors inherent in a combat environment which affect movement and fighting in a way that, if not a perfect reproduction of reality is reality-based. There are two areas however, in which it falls short of this ideal, in my opinion- unit fatigue and artillery ammo.
Unit go into resting or fatigued status as a result of having more hits inflicted on them in combat than they can absorb or by participating in extended night activity. The latter, although reality-based, is a rare occurrence. The designer states that if a unit fights long enough, it will likely become fatigued, but I have found that many engage in movement and combat turn after turn without suffering fatigue because they do not launch low odds attacks or are not subject to defending at poor odds. This is especially true of German mech units for the first half of the game.
Artillery units which fire are subject to ammo depletion as a result of a die roll, weighted heavily in favor of the Americans. but still unpredictably random. Reloading is accomplished by another weighted die roll, again random. If a commander has limited arty ammo available, he/she should be able to decide who should fire it off and where to send more.
How to improve these situations? As with all wargames, more reality is only gained by adding more rules, complexity and record-keeping.
Each player would have to keep track of how many times an arty unit fires without replenishment and also keeptrack of that replenishment. Of course, the Americans would get a lot more ammo and transport for it than the Germans, but the players would be able to decide how to allocate this resource as they do with others in the game. One could postulate that the German player has enough ammo each turn to reload 1/3 of his arty and each truck point assigned to transport can replenish 2 units. For the US, 70%.
Fatigue would be even more involved, requiring a record for every unit reflecting continued movement and combat.
I'd like to see ideas from others about these aspects of the game with comments and suggestions. Thanks.

Thread: Wacht am Rhein 2

7arm — 2007-07-25T13:54:32+00:00

A question about Wach am Rhein 2- Reinforcements enter in strategic mode but only mech units can use this mode. How do leg units enter? Must these units be assigned an assembly area? Thanks

Thread: Re: So how is the game so far?

7arm — 2007-07-16T15:38:08+00:00

Two examples of the rushed, incomplete nature of the game- The designer tells the players to use dimes- DIMES! to represent fuel dumps.
One is supposed to use "Ace of Spades" markers to indicate an attack designated unit and step losses. Units wind up with these markers on and under them. Good luck.
I use fuel dump and step loss markers from "Ardennes" by the Gamers.

Thread: Re: Quick Comments

geira — 2007-07-14T15:16:14+00:00

Scotty Dave wrote:
Where did you get this from? WaR2 is effectively a complete redesign.

Only from the fact that it's advertised as such. The box cover clearly states "this new edition of Wacht am Rhein presents extensive modifications to the combat, artillery and supply subsystems of the first edition" and "the orders of battle have also been extensively revamped". While crediting Joe Youst as the "redesigner", to me this reads like it's not a new game, but a modified version of the original.

Now, Avalon Hill was always careful to discern between different games with the same name (Bulge, Gettysburg) and new editions of the same game (Anzio, Third Reich). Despite its fancy new graphics the reissue of Napoleon's Last Battles (another Simonsen vs Youst example) is clearly the same game, even down to counter values and exact wording of the rulebook. Unfortunately I haven't managed to track down a copy of the game in question and so cannot comment on the rules (though I seem to remember one complaint about the rulebooks being separated into series and game rules, a common SPI feature). On closer inspection at least the counters seem to bear no resemblance to the 1st edition (values are totally different, even the number of factors for some types). So I have to concur that this game seems too remote from the original to be labeled as a "new edition" but is in fact just another Bulge game, albeit on an uncommon scale. Which means that Decision Games, in addition to bad rules and missing components also are guilty of false advertising.

The reason I'm harping on this point is one of audience. A reissue (even with reworkings) of an older game is usually meant to appeal to a) fans of the original edition, and b) new gamers who have heard enough about the original to want it (which version you end up buying often depends whether you're a player or a collector). A new game has to garner a reputation for itself, even if sharing the name with a previous game (a common marketing trick). While veteran Bulge '81 players were generally disgusted with the Smithsonian "edition" (but generally favourable to Bitter Woods, which at least was on the same scale), it may have brought a few more gamers into the hobby on the basis of its name (an oversized box containing mostly air also probably helped). As for WaR, it seems that owners of both editions are generally dissatisfied.

Thread: Re: Quick Comments

7arm — 2007-07-13T01:04:06+00:00

I followed the development of this game on the company site quite closely as I was panting to get my hands on it and I was thus aware of the delays and problems they had getting it out. Example- publication pushed back just when it was due out due to poor counter printing. After becoming familiar with the game, it seemed to me that it bore much evidence of being rushed.
As far as faults in the original persisting and not being Joe's responsibility, I can't buy that. The right thing to do is to admit where the game fell short of being a complete professional product and correct it, providing whatever is necessary to those who have already bought it.

Thread: Re: Quick Comments

Scotty Dave — 2007-07-12T20:26:00+00:00

geira wrote:
Well, I was under the impression that the real designers of WaR was Jim Dunnigan and Redmond Simonsen, and that Joe Youst was the developer for the 2nd edition.

Where did you get this from? WaR2 is effectively a complete redesign. Virtually the only things it shares with the original game are title, subject and scale. Indeed, Joe Youst is quite dismissive of much of the original game is his designers notes.

Thread: Re: Quick Comments

geira — 2007-07-12T17:29:37+00:00

Well, I was under the impression that the real designers of WaR was Jim Dunnigan and Redmond Simonsen, and that Joe Youst was the developer for the 2nd edition. Apart from far better graphics and a revamp of the OoB (both much welcome), his main contribution is a reworking of the rules in areas that did not perform so well in the 1st edition.

Surely some of your comments apply equally to both editions. If the new rules aren't working either then that is fair cause for complaint (as is faulty or missing components), but Joe Youst should not be blamed for shortcomings in the original SPI edition. Granted he could have improved on any such matters, but there are limits to how much a developer can change a game before veterans will complain.

While it is true that each game must be judged on its own merits, a 30 year old design is a 30 year old design (albeit a classic one), and buyers should keep that in mind when purchasing. I for one applaud Decision Games for keeping old classics alive and updating them into the next century.

Finally, always remember that electronic messages are always written in the best possible meaning but read in the worst. And if you're still not satisfied with your purchase, I'd be happy to take it off your hands for the full price as new.

Thread: Re: Quick Comments

7arm — 2007-07-11T14:43:53+00:00

The only esthetic gripes I have- the German feldgrau on the counters is too close to the color of many of the hexes and that hex numbers are unreadable in a lot of hexes due to terrain overprinting, especially forest. I constantly find myself tracing back to a readable hex number and then counting back to the hex in question.
I also found myself making play aids such as army cards to track all the needed info, a new turn record track including all date-sensitive info and a track to record the assigned assembly areas of formations in strategic mode.
By the way, can anyone resolve a contradiction for me? Reinforcements enter in strategic mode but leg units can't use this mode. How do leg units enter the board?
One of the points I made to the designer (no reply) was that anyone who would pay $150.00 for a game would go for another $50-75.00 to have a really complete game, to include mounted boards, sufficient counter trays, more player aids including printing them single sided to avoid flipping, more counters to avoid the disorganized back printing which makes organized storage so difficult. A company which feels comfortable marketing a game with a price in excess of $400.00 should be able to do this.
The multiple locations of rules on the same subject, the lack of an index and the ridiculous amount of errata cry out for correction.
The game, as published, is the framework on which an excellent simulation could be built.

Thread: Re: Quick Comments

Scotty Dave — 2007-07-11T05:16:59+00:00

geira wrote:

How about telling us exactly what is screwed up? Haven't read the rules in detail, but the counters and maps look real nice to me.

Here is an extract from a letter I wrote to the designer, after he asked me what I disliked about the game. He never replied.

"Before I start, let me give you just a short list of the things I like about WaR2:

· The physical components are top notch – I can’t fault the aesthetics in any way

· The size and scale are exactly what I was looking for

· The game system itself is well thought out, and has much of what I think is needed to represent battle at this scale, in that place, at that time

· In particular I like that I can break down battalions, that the battle group concept is so well done, that the players have to make decent logistics choices, that airpower is included in an elegant way, but not just as generic air points, that congestion arises naturally from the system rather than from iron maiden rules, that artillery is a vital factor on attack and defence….and so on. And those are just what I can remember off the top of my head since I last browsed the rules months ago.

However, I am extremely disappointed by how little effort appears to have gone into "design for use." We have already exchanged views on the infamous section 2.2.1. However, I am not sure that you understand why I think this is important. To start out, let's agree some key terms - playable is not the opposite of detailed, right - for any given level of detail, you can have a game which is more or less playable, dependent on how well the detail is rendered in the game system and the rules? So, 2.2.1 strikes me as an obvious example of a bigger point - whenever you thought of something that you feel is neat, it looks like you dropped it into the game. I'm with you on aesthetics, Joe, I like naturalistic terrain too, but if doing it means that you have to add another rule to a rulebook which is already bursting at the seams - then you have made a bad decision.

The absence of decent play aids is another example of the same thing. The fact that dedicated players have gone to the enormous effort of producing home grown versions post publication shows how much they were needed in the first place. Now you may well counter, as you did when Mark Pitcavage asked for set up charts, that the time and cost of producing them was prohibitive? I understand the issue, but think that it shows that you had the wrong design priorities - if time and cost was the issue, you should have left something else out - naturalistic terrain, maybe - to leave you enough room to design the game for ease of use.

On top of a system that is too difficult – for its given level of detail – the fact that the rules are so poorly realised is my next, serious gripe. Again, we have covered this before. I would never have gone for a series approach to such a complex system. To tell you the truth, I think you will find that the system is so specific to the Bulge that it will be barely recognizable when you port it. Whatever. Given that choice – which you will recognise is another choice that favours the designers over the players – the choice of what is specific and what is generic has not been done well.

All the above disappointed me but the thing which drove me over the edge on the game was what I perceived to be the arrogance reflected in the tone of the rulebook. Again, you probably don’t need to hear me ram it down your throat one more time, so I won’t. Suffice it to say, I honestly think that if the specific rulebook had just apologized for the errors, I would have been onboard. The way I read it, it was telling me that you just didn’t care if things were wrong. Some of Ty’s ill considered post on CSW merely confirmed me in this view.

In terms of the game system and how well it meets your objectives? - I really can’t tell, as I have never played it. I do not believe that the key to the bulge was merely that the Germans did not come up with a decent pin and flank tactic. I suspect that the main things missing are limited intelligence, and the impact of the chain of command, especially in regards to decision making flexibility at the low level of command shown in the game. Not just decision making flexibility, but also flexibility in operational planning and implementation of changed plans."

I hope this gives you a flavour of at least one gamer's perception of the game...

Thread: Re: Quick Comments

7arm — 2007-07-09T14:01:36+00:00
I love this game despite its many faults. I did write to the designer with deatailed criticism and never got a reply, but what I give him great credit for is the attempt to create a playable game that accounts for so many aspects of the combat environment heretofore ignored. Examples- unit mode, cover, command and control.
Perhaps the one feature I admire most is the way German supply problems in this campaign are handled. I've played every Bulge game I know of and this system is absolutely the best and most realistic.
I do agree that Decision games owes all of us who bought W.A.R. free corrected materials.

Thread: Re: Quick Comments

geira — 2007-06-22T17:10:27+00:00
Scotty Dave wrote:

[...] We chose to make the maps hard to use
[...] We screwed up the charts on the map
[...] We screwed up the counters
[...] We screwed up the charts

How about telling us exactly what is screwed up? Haven't read the rules in detail, but the counters and maps look real nice to me.

Thread: Re: So how is the game so far?

jforjan — 2007-05-12T15:07:28+00:00
I played the original SPI WaR and was thinking about getting this one. How does it compare to the SPI version? The cost is a bit steep and I would like to be able to compare the gaming experience to one that I am familiar with.

Thread: Re: So how is the game so far?

Panzer — 2006-07-11T16:55:51+00:00
The game is intense. It is a Heavy weight to learn and to play. We played at Consimworld Expo in Tempe Arizona in 2004 pre-publication and this year 2006. The game is complicated in that the rules are subtle. You need to look multiple places in the rulebook in order to cover some situations. I am one of the playtesters of the game and we still had some issues getting off the ground at the Expo. Thankfully Joe was available to assist us and guide us through the game play.

This is not a beer and pretzels game, it is truly a historic simulation of a historical battle. If you want Beer and Pretzels play The Gamers Ardennes or Avalon Hill's Battle of the Bulge. For more advanced but less complicated, Iron Tide, Ardennes 44 and others are a good play.
But if you truly want to experience the frustration of battlefield command and feel what it was like, this is the game for you.

You can win this game as the Germans, but you have to be good, damn good, in order to do it. You have to know the rules inside and out, be willing to take significant losses, and endure the seemingly endless American artillery barrages.

If you go to Consimworld.com there are some really good AARs posted from the Expo that can give you further enlightenment on the play of the game.

The game is worth the cost of admission but be forewarned, it is not for the faint of heart, but it is fun and exciting once you get into it and understand the depth and richness of the rules system.

Thread: Re: Uggh, rtf file for rules updates???

Panzer — 2006-07-11T16:42:05+00:00
Jeff,
Contact me via email. I can PDF the living rules for you.
Not sure if they can be posted here or not. Am going to submit them and see what the moderators think...

Thread: Re: So how is the game so far?

Scotty Dave — 2006-03-24T11:45:05+00:00
This is clearly a big and complex game. That is not the issue however. The issue is its difficulty. There are bigger, more complex games that are less difficult.

Unfortunately this game has been executed in an incompetent way in too many areas, and that makes it much more difficult than it need be.

I'll give just a couple of examples; there are many more.

The designer makes great play of the fact that this is a series, and uses this to justify the added difficulty for the gamer of flipping between rulebooks. However, the series rulebook contains a number of game specific rules.

And the markers have a pretty random scatter of front and back designs, which make it much harder than it need be to design a sensible storage system.

If there is to be any future for monster games they need more than the kitchen sink. They need a coherent design view, vigorous development to weed out the designer's unecessary over-elaborations, and consistently excellent execution to make it as easy as possible for the gamer.

This game, unfortunately, has none of these

Thread: Re: So how is the game so far?

joeyoust — 2006-02-12T05:10:29+00:00
I would tend to agree with David Gray's assessments. The game has many small scenarios, but the larger campaign game is for those who like to see how things develop in an in-depth, albeit much slower, manner.

Thread: Re: So how is the game so far?

graydo — 2006-02-11T18:18:32+00:00
You'd probably do well to check out the CSW discussions. It looks like whether it is for you depends on your level of patience and whether you like kitchen sink style designs.

Thread: Re: So how is the game so far?

joeyoust — 2006-02-11T09:56:16+00:00
others beg to differ. I can forward you emails from very satsified customers, if you like.

Thread: Re: So how is the game so far?

Scotty Dave — 2006-02-04T22:37:21+00:00
proflui wrote:
I know it is a monster game and it is very new so not many people should have tried it. I do not own the game but I am very interested in getting it. But the price is pretty steep though. So I would really like to know how is the game so far for anyone who is playing it. Is it really tough to learn? Is it intense? Any kind of comments is nice. Thanks.

It's a complete mess unfortunately. Save your money

Thread: Quick Comments

Scotty Dave — 2006-02-03T06:02:05+00:00
Warning – this is a rant.

Am I a lone voice on this, or do you agree? – though it gives me no pleasure to say it, Wacht am Rhein is a mess. Its botched production values, ridiculous rules organisation and designer hubris take us back, not to the golden age of SPI, but instead to the worst of WWW.

Where shall I start? Page 1 of the Scenario booklet is as good a place as any. Let me paraphrase:

[2.2.1.b] Towns, Cities & Rivers

We chose to make the maps hard to use, so we could show off our topographical expertise (And the rambling explanation of this cites the wrong hex number 3 times!)

[2.2.0] Game Charts & Tables

We screwed up the charts on the map

[2.3.0] Playing Pieces

We screwed up the counters

[2.3.1] Unit Type Chart

We screwed up the charts

A pretty comprehensive list – about the only things not screwed up are the dice.

But the real kicker here is – they don’t even apologise. Not a whisper of a “sorry dear customer for putting you to all this trouble.” And this is entirely consistent with the design view that permeates this effort – that the designer seems to want us all to know that he’s the smartest guy in the room. What else could explain the nonsense around ZOCs? Or the astonishingly condescending advice we get regarding Unit Modes – “Choose wisely????” Sorry, guys, but I worked that out for myself – what might be more helpful is a little hint as to what a wise choice might look like.

I so wanted to love this game – great lineage, great topic, and the hobby needs new monster games every now and again to balance the swing towards playability. But this is a false step, which forgets most of the lessons we have all spent 25 years learning.

Poor show.

Thread: Uggh, rtf file for rules updates???

Berkut — 2005-12-29T19:17:47+00:00
Any chance this can be converted to PDF so it can actually be printed nicely?

Thread: Re: Wacht II rules

joeyoust — 2005-12-16T11:18:38+00:00
Hey Everbody,

I have been a little delayed (with the WitPacific II maps) as far as getting the second ruleset finished. I'll have it out soon. But you can get any questions answered in the meantime on Consimworld or by emailing me at joeyoust@sbcglobal.net

Joe Youst

Thread: Re: So how is the game so far?

hobie — 2005-10-22T19:48:10+00:00
It's a big, beautiful and expensive game, to be sure. I am playing some smaller scenarios solitaire, and I have difficulty with the rules (although I've been playing these games for 30 years). The good news is, that you can get rules advice from the designer himself in the Consimworld forum for the game. It sure helps, as the rules are complex and there are a lot of procedures involved, for combat resolution, movement and observation. This is a slow-moving and highly detailed game. The designer has promised to put up revised rules and scenario setups on the Decision Games site this fall, so keep checking in.

So far, I'm not sorry having bought it as I am getting the hang of it and I look forward to playing a campaign.

Thread: So how is the game so far?

proflui — 2005-06-04T21:59:14+00:00
I know it is a monster game and it is very new so not many people should have tried it. I do not own the game but I am very interested in getting it. But the price is pretty steep though. So I would really like to know how is the game so far for anyone who is playing it. Is it really tough to learn? Is it intense? Any kind of comments is nice. Thanks.