Game: Battle of the Bulge

Thread: Re: Advanced and Optional Rules

Fury — 2007-12-05T18:20:54+00:00

I have discovered the answer to the rules used at the WBC's. I assume that the victory conditions listed in the following link have evolved over time for play balance reasons.

The following is from http://www.boardgamers.org/yearbkex/b81pge.htm

SCENARIO. The WBC 8-turn Tournament Scenario will be played using Second Edition, Advanced Game rules, with Optional Rule 36.0 (SS Panzer Commitment in 16AM) in effect. Per errata: 4NW and 388 Arty start in Area B; 17NW and 405 Arty start in Area A. The Scenario Victory Conditions are described below:

a. Time Limit: The game ends at the conclusion of the American 19PM turn - Exception: The game ends earlier, if the German player can attain an automatic victory as described in the next paragraph.

b. German Automatic Victory: The game ends immediately for any of the following:

(1) A German combat unit enters a Liege hex or a Meuse River city hex.
(2) German combat units occupy two cities on the west board simultaneously.
(3) Three German mechanized-class units exit the mapboard from road hexes AA1, DD1 or any hexes containing a German cross.

c. If an automatic victory is not achieved, the German player wins by accomplishing four of the following 11 objectives - Note: "capture" is defined as occupying the hex at the end of the American 19PM turn, regardless of supply status:
(1) Capture Bastogne.
(2) Capture Parker's Crossroads (hex AA17).
(3) Capture Stavelot.
(4) Capture Trois Ponts.
(5) Capture Spa.
(6) Capture Eupen.
(7) Capture a fuel dump.
(8) Capture any city on the west map that is east of the Meuse.
(9) Eliminate 18 or more Allied combat units.
(10) Lose three (3) or fewer German mechanized or artillery-class units.
(11) Create a bridgehead across the Ourthe River by capturing one of the following hexes: T26, V23, X22. For this victory condition to be accomplished, Bastogne must also be captured.

Thread: Advanced and Optional Rules

Fury — 2007-12-04T15:14:04+00:00

When using the Advanced Rules is it necessary to use them all as a group or are there some that are typically dropped for play balance?

What Optional rules are typically used?

Are the Advanced and/or Optional rules used at the WBC tournament?

Thanks!

PCS

Image

Xookliba — 2007-07-17T03:07:21+00:00

Counter sheet 2

Image

Xookliba — 2007-07-17T03:06:53+00:00

Counter sheet 1

Image

morsecrossing — 2007-05-11T17:25:19+00:00

Variant Counters from General vol.25, no.2

Image

2006-12-02T05:43:04+00:00

Avalomhilly Host app

Image

ehays66210 — 2005-11-10T01:14:52+00:00

Player Aid Card

Image

ehays66210 — 2005-11-10T01:14:52+00:00

Map

Image

ehays66210 — 2005-11-10T01:14:52+00:00

German Order of Appearance

Image

ehays66210 — 2005-11-10T01:14:52+00:00

Allied Order of Appearance

Image

icurmt2 — 2005-04-20T15:49:09+00:00

Update kit

Image

icurmt2 — 2005-02-25T15:47:21+00:00

Thread: Session Report

gschloesser — 2001-01-01T06:00:00+00:00

Bill Sander's thirst for a war game was finally satisfied as he and Willerd Fann re-lived the Battle of the Bulge, the old Avalon Hill classic. Amazingly, it was near 9:00PM before they finally slogged through the rules and prepared the game for play. Their progress wasn't helped by the collapse of one side of the table, causing counters and set-up charts to spill to the floor.

Eventually, the game commenced, but progress was very slow. It appears this one may take many weeks to play to completion. Hopefully, Willerd or Bill will provide reports as the game progresses.

Here is Bill Sanders' report of the Battle of the Bulge game began last week:

Willerd is playing the Allies, and I (Bill) am playing the German side. We are playing the "breakout" scenario, covering the initial thrust on Dec 16, 1944, extending to the change in weather that stalled German progress on Dec. 22. We are using the advanced rule set with all the options (mostly covering use of German commandos and some initial logistical problems).

To put things in context, the Ardennes offensive was the final German counter-offensive on the western front. Their objective was to hit the Americans at their weakest point of an extended front extending from Belgium to central France. If the Germans could penetrate to Antwerp, they could cut off 40 Allied divisions. Hitler had hoped this would not only weaken the Allied offensive, but would create an irreparable schism between the Allies. For a concise history, check out http://helios.acomp.usf.edu/~dsargent/index.html.

To make their bold plan achievable, the Germans needed the element of surprise and poor weather, which would take the Allied air superiority out of play. They got both. The beginning of this game has the Germans overwhelming a thin American line. The American units that start the game will likely all be eliminated, but they can effectively impede the Germans' progress until reinforcements arrive. If the Germans have not made enough progress by the time weather clears on the 23rd, they will be hopelessly outnumbered and, moreover, harassed by Allied air power.

This is a division level game with each turn simulating one half day of the battle. We have only played the opening day so far. I opened with a rather disorganized strike against the Allied middle and south. But I have managed (mostly due to Willerd's oversight, or unfamiliarity with the game) to open up a hole in the south to exploit. By the way, there is no exploitation movement in this system. If the Allies can put units at every crucial road intersection or town, the Germans are immobile. However, if the Allies fail to plug every hole, the Germans can maneuver around the Americans' defenses. Willerd has been successful in slowing the advance by blowing several bridges in the center of Luxembourg), but I am still making progress there. I am being rather clumsy. The Germans must make their gains in the North. This would take the British reinforcements out of the game. By far, most victory points are scored in the North.

Thread: Session Report

gschloesser — 2001-01-01T06:00:00+00:00

Willerd Fann and Bill Sanders resumed their recreation of the Battle of the Bulge in this Avalon Hill classic. At about 10:00PM, they opted to set aside the game as they were anxious to prepare for another marathon game of Rossyia 1917 from Azure Wish. So, they dutifully recorded every unit's location and re-boxed the game with plans to finish it at some future date. Together with Jon Comeaux, they then spent better than an hour beginning preparations for Rossyia. I guess I'll be looking at that game board for the next several months as it will likely take many months to complete.

Hopefully, Bill will forward a Battle of the Bulge status report.

Thread: Session Report

davekohr — 2001-01-01T06:00:00+00:00

At the Dec. 13, 2000 SVB session about 22 people attended.

Let's welcome newcomer Jeff Kahn!

GMT's Battle of the Bulge" wargame "Tigers in the Mist" (ChrisF, *DaveK*) :

ChrisF: "I went into this one with curiosity but low expectations, I admit. I've had it for over a year and wanted to play, but had somehow never got around to it other than an hour of solitaire to learn the game. Given my low expectations, I was impressed. It plays fairly cleanly, is quite simple, for a wargame, and has a good feel for the Battle of the Bulge.

The downsides are an outrageous luck element and the rather perverse stacking rules. On the luck, my Germans were rather unlucky on the first turn - several nearly-maximal odds attacks failed to clear US areas of only a single 1 or 2SP unit, which meant I could never secure a real breakthrough, which made the whole game practically impossible for the Germans to win. The combat system is extremely attritional (the system is much bloodier and even more defender-biased even than the various Columbia games), which means a German who is unlucky early is probably doomed.

The other problem is the 4 units AND 10SP stacking limits. These are so comparatively low, that the attacker has a hard time even getting decent odds in a system that is already weighted heavily against him. Unit cohesion is important, obviously, but I like Storm over Arnhem's system for portraying this a lot better.

Anyway, despite all this, the game is far from bad. I do like the simplicity and the generally pretty good historical feel. But, as a game it's certainly not in the same class as Storm over Arnhem, We the People, or Rommel in the Desert, or even the less-stellar but still quite solid Saratoga, Royal Tank Corps, or Cataphract. Hopefully the new Simple Great Battles of History will be a good intro-level game too. Tigers in the Mist is certainly a game I could be talked into playing again, but not somthing I would instigate."

Chris' Funagain review of most everything except the gameplay is at

http://kumquat.com/cgi-kumquat/funagain/06986

DaveK: "After playing it twice, I definitely think more highly of the game than Chris does. But first, I'll get my (few) gripes out of the way:

As many have noticed, the boundaries between the areas are nearly invisible. When I first saw the map, I thought it would be unplayable, but after playing a little I can see this is merely a constant nuisance.

The scenarios I've played (1-turn intro and 5th Army tournament scenario) are pretty one-sided, with the Germans doing almost all the attacking. Since even the campaign ends on Dec. 22, it's not clear to me if the Allies ever get to do much besides bleed.

I'm not sure about play balance, at least not in the 5th Army scenario. Neither Chris nor I made any huge strategic blunders, yet the game was essentially a shutout: Chris was nowhere near scoring any VPs when we stopped, just a day before the scenario's normal end time. He was supposed to get something like 13 for a win.

Now on to the praise:

Other than the unfortunate choice of colors for area boundaries, the rest of the components are quite attractive. The armored units have individual tank silhouettes, and the map itself is very pretty and evocative of the Ardennes (in summer, anyway--it doesn't show any snow!).

The movement/stacking rules work in concert quite well to represent the constricted road net and channeling terain, without adding a lot of fiddly rules of the sort "no more than X units may pass along a road segment in one turn", as many other games do.

The luck component is actually not so bad, I think our game was an aberration. There are many more dice rolls for combat than in typical CRT-based games, so the odds of a single defending step holding out against a well-planned assault are not too high (1 in 10 or 1 in 15), and for the Allies to completely prevent a German breakout this sort of thing has to happen in multiple battles. I suspect the trick is that the Germans have to plan for the possibility of losing some battles despite high odds. On the plus side, I really like these fistful-of-dice combat systems, both because of the "fun" factor of rolling lots of dice, and because they generate a wider range of possible results than a CRT while fitting that range onto an appropriate bell curve. Also, the game gives an ever-increasing modifier for the critical engineering function of trying to rebuild bridges (and I believe you get to try every impulse), so the likely elapsed time for doing so is predictable--the Germans are less likely to be hosed by a few bad die rolls.

The impulse system strongly encourages skillful management of reserves (both for the defenders to plug holes in their line, and for the attackers to exploit them). It seems like it should model overrun/breakthrough/ exploitation well, but we didn't get to see it in our game because Chris had such horrendous luck at first.

The attritional system "feels" right in many ways: slightly more clever moves lead to slightly better combat results, which add up to a bigger difference over time; offensives lose steam gradually (but unpredictably) due to losses; and single units lose effectiveness (but still take up stacking space).

The overall rules are extremely streamlined and playable, with lots of non-essential chrome left out.

The developers built in good "ergonomics": good player aids and a well-thought out system of markers that show what's been moved, modifiers for blowing bridges, etc. I found myself spending very little time fiddling with rules and counters, compared to other similar games.

The playing time of the "tournament" scenarios is perfect for me (3-4 hours, with most of that time spent thinking and playing rather than leafing through the rules). And the sequence of play is fairly interactive, so you're rarely sitting around waiting.

I strongly suspect that the game is much better balanced than our game's outcome. In most games where one side starts out on the offensive with a big force advantage, it's harder to learn the tricks needed to attack effectively than it is to defend. (As one example, ever Barbarossa Campaign game I've played has this characteristic.) I like Tigers enough that I want to replay it to learn some of those tricks, which speaks highly of the game. It may well move onto my "want to buy" list."