Game: Ardennes '44

Thread: Re: Question on Rule 13.5

Galileo — 2008-08-02T17:33:26+00:00

klasmalmstrom wrote:
Hi,

A couple of question on Rule 13.5 Allied Attacks onto the Map

1. Can units off-board attacking onto the Map combine with units already on the board ?

2. The Allied stack that can attack onto the Map - are stacking limits applicable to those off-board stacks ?

1. Yes, on- and off-map units may combine, as long as all other combat rules are followed. For example, command and control, a maximum of two divisions.

2. Yes, stacking limits apply to the off-map units. For example, the number of stacks that may attack onto the map is limited by the number of roads leading onto the map. If the hex has two roads leading off-map, then two stacks may attack onto the map at that location. Each off-map stack must comply with rule 8 stacking and all other combat restrictions, particularly, the number of divisions that may attack a single hex.

Remember, to attack onto the map all OTHER blocked entry hexes must have at least 6 defensive factors. For example, if 2 hexes are blocked, to attack at location A, location B must have Allied units with at least 6 defensive factors. The units attacking at A do not need to meet the 6 factor restriction.

Thread: Question on Rule 13.5

klasmalmstrom — 2008-08-02T16:56:51+00:00

Hi,

A couple of question on Rule 13.5 Allied Attacks onto the Map

1. Can units off-board attacking onto the Map combine with units already on the board ?

2. The Allied stack that can attack onto the Map - are stacking limits applicable to those off-board stacks ?

Thread: Re: Intense marathon

kbernatz — 2008-07-25T13:46:46+00:00

Not only 10 hours to play, but 10 hours for the /6/ turn scenario (from my understanding). That seems a bit excessive to me, from my experience...but not completely unreasonable. Alot will depend on the the personalities of the players, especially the German early on.

If they are someone that moves quickly and has a "slide 'em forward and attack, attack, attack" mentality, then the game will go much quicker. If they are a more methodical, make sure they don't end up at odds of 29:10, but squeeze out that extra 1 point, etc., then the game will take much longer. The reason is that (as the original poster mentioned) there is alot of "chrome" in A'44, which makes for much more methodical thinking required if you want to optimize everything.

The Americans will take some time too, since leaving a gap in their lines early can be devestating to them, but they simply have sooo many fewer units early, and much fewer "movable" units later, that they are generally going to take less time than the Germans.

-K

P.S. I'm more towards the methodical end of the scale, so I'm not denoting this as a negative...it's just who we are :-).

Thread: Re: Stacking and replacements

Darksan — 2008-05-28T02:02:23+00:00

The Designer sez...

Yes, you can retreat it one hex as if it was adjacent to an enemy unit.

You will get a quicker response over on www.consimworld.com

Thread: Re: Some rule questions ?

Jason Roach — 2008-05-20T21:18:39+00:00

Klas,

I will give these a shot. See below.

1. If using the Optional rule for Night Infiltration (34) - can Artillery Units use this to Shift Fire Positions (22.2) ?

Yes, I think so.

2. We ended up with a situation in which an American unit that was Routed ended up being ENGaged after suffering another attack during a Breakthrough Combat - since it cannot move in the following American Movement Phase - must it attempt to disengage (since it is Routed and would normally be forced to move away) ?

Yes. They can’t be in ZOC. If it starts in ZOC it must attempt to move away. (18.2)

3. If a Disrupted/Routed unit that is ENGaged attempts to disengaged - does it suffer any penalties if the disengagment results in a D-result (D = The unit is Disrupted, which in this exmaple the unit already is) ?

I can't recall, but normally a 2nd Disrputoin is a Route.

4. An American unit is ENGaged in the German PM turn. In the following German Night Turn all adjacent German units move away - is the American unit still ENGaged ?

No.

5. Assume you are attacking with a Tank Unit and an Infantry Unit and the defender has no Tank units - if you include the Tank Unit in the attack, do you have to use the Armor Shift ?,

No

or can you use a Tank Unit in attack/defense without using the Armor Shift (basically to possibly avoid having the tank unit take the first step loss ) ?

Yes. You can hold the armor shift in order to avoid it taking the loss, sort of like tactically using economy of force in order to lessen the chance of taking extra caslutlies.

6. According to rule 17.6 an Allied unit that is forced to retreat off board (of a non-East edge) is Disrupted. If it was forced to retreat 3 or 4 hexes it would normally be Routed (not just Disrupted).

It would be Routed.

Is such a unit still Routed if forced to retreat offboard ? (or would the effect be reduced to Disrupted only ?)

See above.

7. Also, which offboard holding area would it be placed in if it retreats off an hex that isn't marked by an entry letter ?

The nearest one.

Have fun.

-Jason

Thread: Some rule questions ?

klasmalmstrom — 2008-05-20T20:53:47+00:00

1. If using the Optional rule for Night Infiltration (34) - can Artillery Units use this to Shift Fire Positions (22.2) ?

2. We ended up with a situation in which an American unit that was Routed ended up being ENGaged after suffering another attack during a Breakthrough Combat - since it cannot move in the following American Movement Phase - must it attempt to disengage (since it is Routed and would normally be forced to move away) ?

3. If a Disrupted/Routed unit that is ENGaged attempts to disengaged - does it suffer any penalties if the disengagment results in a D-result (D = The unit is Disrupted, which in this exmaple the unit already is) ?

4. An American unit is ENGaged in the German PM turn. In the following German Night Turn all adjacent German units move away - is the American unit still ENGaged ?

5. Assume you are attacking with a Tank Unit and an Infantry Unit and the defender has no Tank units - if you include the Tank Unit in the attack, do you have to use the Armor Shift ?, or can you use a Tank Unit in attack/defense without using the Armor Shift (basically to possibly avoid having the tank unit take the first step loss ) ?

6. According to rule 17.6 an Allied unit that is forced to retreat off board (of a non-East edge) is Disrupted. If it was forced to retreat 3 or 4 hexes it would normally be Routed (not just Disrupted).

Is such a unit still Routed if forced to retreat offboard ? (or would the effect be reduced to Disrupted only ?)

7. Also, which offboard holding area would it be placed in if it retreats off an hex that isn't marked by an entry letter ?

Thread: Re: Stacking and replacements

gamer72 — 2008-05-16T19:36:47+00:00

Good question. I'd say that you should retreat the unit : if you can disengage from the enemy, you can surely disengage from the friendlies !

Thread: Stacking and replacements

Emil 109 — 2008-05-16T17:30:20+00:00

Lets say 2 infantry are in the same hex with 1 and 2 stacking points respectively.
I want to give a replacement to the damaged one but this will bring the stacking points to 2+2=4=illegal.
Can I retreat the receiving unit one hex as is the occasion of a unit wanting to take replacement when it's adjacent to an enemy unit or I can't do it at all because the rules state that the stacking limit can never be exceeded except during movement and retreat?

Thread: Re: Intense marathon

tiger,tiger — 2008-04-16T21:27:45+00:00

10 hours is a long time to game. I'd speculate most wargamers I know would stop at 6 or 7 and finish another day. Although sometimes thats not possible, I know. Games with new player(s) can take much longer,due to rules lookupage, and cautious play alone can add an hour or more.

Thread: Re: Intense marathon

robert.rees — 2008-04-16T16:15:42+00:00

game_boy wrote:

icheyne wrote:
a fantastic breakout with the 5th on the 17th but which was canelised on the 18th
What does "canelised" mean? Google doesn't help...

It's a spelling mistake in the original post. Definition of canalised exactly as the poster above.

As the Allies I was able to blow a series of bridges on the German right flank while occupying the towns in the woods on their left. My front left and right flanks were solid so the breakout instead of spearheading into my rear area and cutting off supply lines (and hence forcing a general retreat) was forced to keep going deeper and deeper and relying on fewer supply lines themselves.

When the Airbourne arrived they effectively formed a "cap" to the breakout by occupying a western line of towns and settlements. With this done the spearhead would have had to throw themselves at well-defended positions to try and continue the advance. A situation that would have involved heavy attrition and ultimately in the historical context been pointless as they could not replace their losses with reinforcements while the Allies could.

Hope that helps.

Thread: Re: Intense marathon

desertfox2004 — 2008-04-16T15:10:35+00:00

game_boy wrote:
Nice report, I found it useful when deciding whether to buy the game for myself.

icheyne wrote:
a fantastic breakout with the 5th on the 17th but which was canelised on the 18th
What does "canelised" mean? Google doesn't help...

Canalized, or channelized, the idea (from my fading memory of my military tactics courses) is that the enemy is "channelled" or "canalized, as in directed down a canal" towards a waiting friendly force which is positioned to stop and defeat that enemy force. Essentially, between terrain and friendly troop positions, you direct or funnel the enemy towards your waiting meat grinder!

Thread: Re: Intense marathon

game_boy — 2008-04-16T12:00:44+00:00

Nice report, I found it useful when deciding whether to buy the game for myself.

icheyne wrote:
a fantastic breakout with the 5th on the 17th but which was canelised on the 18th
What does "canelised" mean? Google doesn't help...

Thread: Intense marathon

icheyne — 2008-04-15T12:13:53+00:00

I originally posted this to my blog: http://cheyne.net/blog/2006/02/ardennes-44/

On Saturday I had one of the most intense gaming experiences of my life.

A month or two ago I discovered a workmate has a few wargames. I told Rob I was interested, so he came over and we tried Ardennes ‘44. It is probably the highest regarded Battle of the Bulge game at the moment. It is Gary Christiansen’s favourite wargame and Chris Farrell rates it 9/10 and gave it a glowing review.

The historical situation is certainly gripping. I did not cover WWII at school at all, and only recently started reading up on it, so it is all very new. For those as ignorant as me, the Battle of the Bulge was Hitler’s final desperate counter attack against the Allies, after D-Day, in the hope that a humiliating defeat would encourage them to sue for peace, so Germany could concentrate itself against the red tide approaching from the east. The attack took place during early winter through the forests of the Ardennes, in Belgium. It nearly worked and was the only time the Americans really looked like they could suffer a serious defeat. Due to this drama, this is probably the most wargamed battle in WWII, more even than D-Day. I have to say that I was enthralled. Fantasy and ancient themes just do not move me any more. They seem tired compared to the real life dramas of history. I am definitely a eurogamer and a wargamer now.

Ardennes ‘44 is simply a hex-and-counter wargame, with zones of control and combat result tables, but a few things mark it out and there is lots to admire:

* large counters and a good-looking map.
* a fairly non-lethal CRT that makes it very tough for the Germans to pin the Americans down, despite their massive fire-power superiority.
* hex-wide ZOC bonds or barriers between allied units, that make encirclement particularly powerful.
* massive traffic problems for the Germans, both due to traffic counters and road blocks that the Americans can lay, but also just due to the trouble armour have getting through woods. These can be alleviated by capturing St Vith, which is very difficult for the Germans.
* a huge disparity between the forces. As the Germans, I spent literally eight or nine times as long on my moves as my opponent.
* artillery is almost immobile, but you can move a certain number every turn with prime mover pieces.
* night turns, where you can forgo movement on your regular turn for three units, who instead get to move later but twice in quick succession, with no interference from the opposition.
* some nice chrome from special units, like the von der Heydte paratroopers or Dr Sola and Panzer Brigade 150 who, against the Geneva Convention, dressed and equipped themselves as Americans in order to gain surprise and sow disorder and confusion.
* the victory conditions of the shorter (!) six turn game remind me almost of a eurogame, as you simply have to capture and hold ten victory point locations, normally villages or small towns, by the end of the game.
* bridges are very easy to blow and rivers are impassable to armour, but bridges cannot be blown before turn 3, which makes a good start for the Americans absolutely imperative.
* the German forces are split into three sectors by rather artificial Army Boundary Lines: red in the north (6th Panzer Army), grey in the centre (5th Panzer Army) and blue in the south (7th Army). These lines make an already choked up map almost impossible to navigate in some places, with the divider between 6th and 5th Panzer particularly annoying.
* small stacks of counters, making this fairly non-fiddly.
* really tough supply problems for the Germans towards the end of the game. Making a supplied exit from the Western map edge looks practically impossible.

With all these interesting positives, come a couple of major negatives.

This is a seriously complicated game. Although generally clearly written and error free, they are 23 dense pages long, not including tables, and I found them hard going. A few times I got very frustrated by what I saw as unnecessary complexity, for instance the movement and stacking rules are needlessly elaborate. Luckily Rob had a good grip on the rules and I had made some effort beforehand, so there was surprisingly little looking-up once things got going.

Generally I enjoyed Ardennes ‘44, but I was stunned by the duration. On Friday, I instant messaged Joe Steadman, and asked how long I could expect it to take and he said four to six hours. The Ardennes ‘44 page at the Geek says 360 minutes. Rob arrived at 10.30pm and we had about 45 minutes for lunch. We finished at 9.30pm – 10 hours 15 minutes and Rob did not even take his last move. After six and a half hours I had had enough. I was enjoying the game itself, but felt exhausted. By the end, it felt more like a test of stamina than a game. I could have made much better use of strategic movement, night turns and prime movers, but by the end I did not care. Six hours is my absolute personal limit.

The bottom line is that this was a love/hate experience for me. I cannot put a numbered rating on the game as, in its class, it is obviously superb, but I never want to endure that marathon again.

Update

Rob pointed out that you might be interested in a bit of an After Action Report of how I actually got on as the Germans. In his words:

You achieved a roughly historical sitution with the 6th, managed an early capture of St. Vith vs. history on the 18th I think (a day late on the historical plan), and a fantastic breakout with the 5th on the 17th but which was canelised on the 18th by the arrival of the airbourne who had to adopt holding positions around the Lehr spearhead in Bastogne and had to try and join hands with the defenders near Stavelot.

It is also worth pointing out that 6th Panzer really got thumped in the north. At the end, I barely got 10 victory points, but we ran out of time and Rob did not take his final turn. I am sure he would have clawed back at least one or two of the victory points giving him the win. On the basis of this one playing, Ardennes ‘44 is very finely tuned and balanced.

Thread: Re: AAR - GMTs Ardennes '44

generalpf — 2008-04-14T05:56:10+00:00

Curious: was this a solo game, or was there an oppponent?

Great report!

Thread: Re: solitaire anyone ?

kbernatz — 2008-02-28T18:32:58+00:00

giants nut wrote:
Thanks Caleb but i have picked up the game already although i haven't had time to play it...doh !!
By the way , love the bender picture.
Thanks again anyway.

Cyberboard can sometimes help, if you're a computer geek like me :-).

I've done 2 cyberboard games solo and am working on a third...yes, this game is very addictive :-).

-K

Thread: Re: EDIT: AAR of 2/4/08: Upon further review...Germans win!

kbernatz — 2008-02-27T17:28:10+00:00

Thanks, though I feel silly about not counting the correct number of victory cities at first :-).

-K

garysax wrote:
Excellent report Kevin.

Thread: Re: EDIT: AAR of 2/4/08: Upon further review...Germans win!

kbernatz — 2008-02-27T17:27:33+00:00

You've probably found it by now, but it's in the files section under "Tutorial and AAR". The BGG Admins prefered a more "tutorial" aspect for it to be accepted (files are not supposed to be session reviews). Of course, it all happened because I did not know how to include pictures into a session report :-)...but now that I know that, hopefully I can make sure session reports end up in the right place.

-K

Champagne wrote:
Where is the .pdf of your game posted, Kevin?

Thread: Re: 24.8 Roadblocks

kbernatz — 2008-02-27T17:24:12+00:00

No, actually it doesn't.... (though Mark's post clarifies the situation). Specifically, the road supply path can be of (effectively) infinite length, so while you may being tracing 4 road hexes (call them R1, R2, R3 and R4) to place the road block, you can use other
road hexes for supply purposes (say road hexes R5, R6, ....R191, R192). Think of a situation where a German roadblock is placed near Liege, but supply is traced along the roads behind Allied lines and back through the German lines at Bastogne. Allowed by the rules, but clearly an "abuse" of the rule language allowing placement of the roadblock.

-K

gb1469 wrote:
This is from the section 24.8 of the rulebook:

PLACEMENT: Roadblocks are placed or repositioned in the owning
player’s Traffic Marker Phase. The following restrictions apply
to placement:
• Must be placed on a road within 4 contiguous road hexes of a
friendly unit. The placement hex must have a valid road-bound
supply path to a friendly map-edge supply source.

This is from the supply rules in section 23.3:

OVERLAND PORTION: The overland portion of the supply path
may be up to four hexes long. It may traverse all types of terrain
(including across rivers) with the following restrictions:
• It may not enter an enemy-occupied hex or cross or enter an enemy
ZOC BOND.
• it may not enter two contiguous vacant hexes in an enemy ZOC.
Note that an overland supply path may enter one vacant hex in an
EZOC, which is useful for units partially surrounded by enemy
units. The presence of a friendly unit in a hex will negate the
supply blocking effects of EZOCs within that hex.

The first bullet eliminates any "abuse" as you are describing...

Thread: Re: EDIT: AAR of 2/4/08: Upon further review...Germans win!

garysax — 2008-02-23T17:40:16+00:00

Excellent report Kevin.

Thread: Re: EDIT: AAR of 2/4/08: Upon further review...Germans win!

Champagne — 2008-02-23T16:03:23+00:00

Where is the .pdf of your game posted, Kevin?

Thread: Re: 11.4 - Movement and Rivers

gustmic — 2008-02-21T18:56:32+00:00

Good angle on the question, Darksan.

That makes it crystal clear.
The keyword being "the" in "...the hexside.."

Thanks,
gustmic

Thread: Re: 24.8 Roadblocks

gb1469 — 2008-02-21T06:14:05+00:00

This is from the section 24.8 of the rulebook:

PLACEMENT: Roadblocks are placed or repositioned in the owning
player’s Traffic Marker Phase. The following restrictions apply
to placement:
• Must be placed on a road within 4 contiguous road hexes of a
friendly unit. The placement hex must have a valid road-bound
supply path to a friendly map-edge supply source.

This is from the supply rules in section 23.3:

OVERLAND PORTION: The overland portion of the supply path
may be up to four hexes long. It may traverse all types of terrain
(including across rivers) with the following restrictions:
• It may not enter an enemy-occupied hex or cross or enter an enemy
ZOC BOND.
• it may not enter two contiguous vacant hexes in an enemy ZOC.
Note that an overland supply path may enter one vacant hex in an
EZOC, which is useful for units partially surrounded by enemy
units. The presence of a friendly unit in a hex will negate the
supply blocking effects of EZOCs within that hex.

The first bullet eliminates any "abuse" as you are describing...

Thread: Re: 24.8 Roadblocks

Simon7itch — 2008-02-18T03:14:15+00:00

>

No, the rule should state the contiguous road hexes can not pass through enemy units or their zocs.

Thread: Re: Anyone here?

Darksan — 2008-02-17T15:30:21+00:00

I would say YES. Use the optional rules for balance on the FAQ.

Thread: Re: 11.4 - Movement and Rivers

Darksan — 2008-02-17T15:18:59+00:00

You could make it to 2114 but only by crossing the 2015/2115 hexside. The rules 11.4 states "Infantry Type units may only cross if they start adjacent to the river hexside and use Tactical Movement (move a mximum of two hexes). The unit in question is NOT adjacent to the 2015/2114 hexside so cannot cross that hexside at that time.

Skip Franklin
listed on page 40

gustmic wrote:
About to begin my first game.

In 11.4 in the rules, it says that infantry type units must begin their movement adjacent to the river hexside and use tactical movement. Fine. But do I have to cross at once?

For example, are the Germans allowed to make a move from 2016, through 2015, and then end at 2114?

/gustmic

Thread: Re: solitaire anyone ?

giants nut — 2008-02-14T21:59:51+00:00

Thanks Caleb but i have picked up the game already although i haven't had time to play it...doh !!
By the way , love the bender picture.
Thanks again anyway.

Thread: Re: solitaire anyone ?

Sidewynnder — 2008-02-14T03:15:11+00:00

GMT has it up for pre-order on their website. They are reprinting it in case you haven't already picked up a copy.

Thread: 24.8 Roadblocks

kbernatz — 2008-02-05T17:40:56+00:00

The roadblock rules are open to abuse and I was wondering whether I was playing correctly or "rules lawyering" the ruleset.

Specifically, the placement rules require the following:

Clause 1: "Must be placed on a road within contiguous road hexes of a friendly unit"; and

Clause 2:"The placement hex must have a valid road-bound supply to a friendly map-edge supply source". The rule question/abuse is as follows:

Consider a case where an American ENG holds Bastogne, along with some flanking units to have ZOC's or ZOC bonds on all the roads around the immediate vicinity of Bastogne. However, the Germans have punched a hole in the line in the center of the map, along with a full road running unopposed to Allied ZOCs. The Germans have a unit adjacent to Bastogne, on a road coming from the German side of the map.

Question is: Can the German player place a roadblock 2 hexes from Bastogne on the OTHER side of the Allied Engineer.

By a literal reading of the rules, they can since: (1) the roadblock would be placed <4 road hexes from a German unit, even if those contiguous road hexes are traced THROUGH Allied units/ZOC/ZOC bonds (the rules do not prevent this with regard to the "4 contiguous road hexes"). (2) since the Germans have punched a hole in the Allied line with an intact, non-ZOCed road, the road block near Bastogne can trace a road-bound supply path through the Allied backfield (even across the Meuse!) and back out through the hole in the Allied lines. This is because there are no "control" of hexes, with regard to tracing supply (see section 23). As long as the road-bound portion does not enter an enemy hex or EZOC (unless there is a friendly unit there) or cross a river at an undestroyed bridge hex, the road-bound supply can trace an infinite length. Note that the rule set /does/ recognize control (section 25.22 talks about placing reinforcements in a "friendly controlled city or town hex", so the omission from the supply rules can easily be construed as intentional.

From a "realistic" interpretation, I would argue no, since the supply is tracing through enemy controlled hexes and the placement hex requires tracing THROUGH the unit in Bastogne in terms of the "within 4 contiguous hexes". One fix is to simply limit supply from passing through enemy controlled cities, villiages or towns (arguing that there would be inherent guards/troops there that would intercept relatively weakly escorted supply convoys, but that these convoys could still travel relatively unscathed through the countryside). This also ties in with the rule on reinforcement about "friendly controlled cities and towns", so is not much of a stretch.

-K

Thread: Re: AAR of 2/4/08: Germans come close, but fall just short

kbernatz — 2008-02-05T14:51:38+00:00

FYI, having trouble getting the *.pdf file uploaded...but will try, try again :-)

Thread: EDIT: AAR of 2/4/08: Upon further review...Germans win!

kbernatz — 2008-02-04T22:28:34+00:00

Ardennes '44 played solo on Cyberboard
by Kevin Bernatz
[EDIT] NOTE: See related PDF Tutorial + AAR file for maps of the day by day progress (every 2 turns + 1 night turn) of the Germans.

This was the second Ardennes '44 game that I played solo. The first saw the Germans get completely stuffed early due to a strategic failure on my part. Specifically, I got distracted by trying to kill the Allies in the 7th army flank region, and never even got past the Ourthe river. I vowed to not make the same mistake and this is the result.

The Germans started off strong, concentrating on driving towards the Meuse while maintaining only screening forces on the flanks. The result was steady progress on all fronts, with Bastogne falling early in the game. At this point, I paused on that front since the only victory city there seemed an inevitable grab and I knew the 4th Armor was about to hit the German flanks.

As the Allied player, I attempted to keep some semblance of an army intack, while making sure that no Germans could strategic move into my rear (by either ZOC'ing roads or strategic use of road blocks). I also employed a major slash and burn, attemping to blow almost every bridge that I was allowed to by the rules. This ended up being key in slowing down the German panzers, which were often forced to take sub-optimal routes to get where they wanted to go.

Overall, the Allied strategy worked well, though they still suffered heavy losses. Often, I would sacrific units to buy some additional time and/or allow the higher combat factor units to escape encirclement. Sadly, the Allied player was still unable to avoid the loss of 2 CCB's and 1 full 7-6-3 INF regiment. The inability of the CCBs to move "off road" in the high forest portion of the map really made them vulnerable as "defensive stoppers".

[EDIT] The mid to late game saw the Germans get extremely close to several victory conditions, then actually succeed after I remembered that St Hubert and Marche-en-Famenne are West map victory cities, getting 9 of 8 victory cities for condition D; getting 2 of 4 victory cities for condition C; crossing the Meuse and threatening to exit units; and getting within 2 hexes of Liege. While the combination of fuel shortages and Allied air power effectively killed any last ditch efforts that the Germans could have made to win by victory conditions A, B or C, they did manage to barely win on condition D (though they would not have been able to hold all of their "D" cities had I played out the rest of the turns).

Offensively, the Allies recognized that the combat table is "attacker friendly" even though they were unlikely to ever get armor shifts on critical stacks due to the superiority of the German tanks. That being said, the Allied Artillery definitely made up for the lack of 4+ black TQ's and even 2:1's could become very "friendly" 4:1's, disrupting key GE stacks and even routing a few. Given the critical nature of the German time table, even losing a single kill stack for 1 turn due to disruption proved key.

As the Germans, they need to get lucky to win, assuming reasonbly competent play on both sides (it was solo, so technically one could assume the level of play was equal for both sides :-> ). The best way to make their own luck is to know the night rules inside out. At least one of the CCBs was isolated and surrounded due to a key night attack opening up a double move by the Fuhrer Brigade, allowing it to get behind the CCB and preventing it's retreat. What looked like a nice solid line with secure paths of retreat disappeared due to good use of the night rules by the Germans. That and remaining focused on driving towards the Meuse along the entire front, which insures that the Allied player has to commit his forces along the entire front, too. With their interior lines, the Germans should be able to bring a hammer blow to one or two key locations before the Allies can respond...whether it will be enough to win is hard to tell.

As the Allies, the things I found important were keeping a solid front line that the Germans could not strategic move through and (more importantly) trace supply through. With the road block rules requiring supply not through ZOC, but not limiting the 4 road hexes, the Germans can place road blocks behind Allied units if there is an opening anywhere in the line (since supply can be traced across any roads, not just ones that are "behind the front", so to speak). This can severely limit the Allies ability to bring up reinforcements to plug a gap and was something that needed to be avoided at all costs.

Second, I found that it was easier to use the night rules as the Allies by using it defensively. Specifically, where several units might be engaged during a PM turn, I would place night move markers on high MP Allied stacks near the engaged units. This would allow me to see the results of the disengagement before moving these units. That would let me know where the units had to go to best set up the next defensive line. I also would use the night move to let Artillery move 2 hexes (1 hex in the PM turn, then another in the night turn). This actually helped the Germans more, with their rocket artillery...but I think that was partly due to poor night move use by the German side (it's hard to NOT use your toys :-> ).

[Edit] All in all, an excellent game and I'm ready to try a third solo game to see if the Germans can win by going all out to the Meuse without worrying about their flanks at all (or very minimally). The Allies misplayed their response to the threat on Liege, by failing to send enough units West. Had they committed a few additional units Westward, the Germans would never have succeeded in getting Andenne or Huy. Definitely a close game all around!

-Kevin

[Editted to correct relationship to PDF file, and to account for the fact that I miscounted victory cities! Ooops :-> ]

Thread: Re: 11.4 - Movement and Rivers

gustmic — 2008-02-01T22:11:04+00:00

Thanks you all.
I thought as much.
I just wanted to make sure.

/gustmic

Thread: Re: 11.4 - Movement and Rivers

kbernatz — 2008-02-01T16:50:05+00:00

gamer72 wrote:
I think they have to cross as part of the first hex of movement.

I agree. The statement that they must start adjacent to the "hexside" implies that it is that hexside which they are allowed to cross. But I will conceed that the rules are not 100% clear on this.

-K

Thread: Re: 11.4 - Movement and Rivers

gustmic — 2008-01-27T14:02:27+00:00

All in favor?

/gustmic

Thread: Re: 11.4 - Movement and Rivers

gamer72 — 2008-01-27T00:00:57+00:00

I think they have to cross as part of the first hex of movement.

Thread: 11.4 - Movement and Rivers

gustmic — 2008-01-26T23:15:49+00:00

About to begin my first game.

In 11.4 in the rules, it says that infantry type units must begin their movement adjacent to the river hexside and use tactical movement. Fine. But do I have to cross at once?

For example, are the Germans allowed to make a move from 2016, through 2015, and then end at 2114?

/gustmic

Image

Harkonnen13 — 2008-01-12T07:45:11+00:00

Complete box contents

Thread: Re: solitaire anyone ?

giants nut — 2007-11-28T00:16:22+00:00

Thanks for the input Ian and Pete. Now i just have the problem of picking this game up at a reasonable price ! Its very popular ( what i've heard about it i can see why )

Thread: Re: solitaire anyone ?

gamer72 — 2007-11-27T22:33:51+00:00

I've solitaired this a dozen times or more, and while there are no special solitaire rules, if you play the best you can for each side, you won't have any problems. This is one of the best wargames around, I can't recommend it to you highly enough.

Thread: Re: solitaire anyone ?

Pete Atack — 2007-11-27T01:55:50+00:00

I've played this twice solitaire and there are no issues that any other game does not present when playing solitaire.

Thread: Re: Ardennes ’44: not your father’s Bulge game

JG53_Jaguar — 2007-11-26T18:36:59+00:00

I prefer to play ASL, tactical battles on Eastern Front. Though I every much like "The Ardennes Offensive" PC wargame made by SSG. TAO is very elegant/clean design/though AI to beat tye of wargame that is close to my heart. Browsing BBG last week getting to Ardennes '44 page by almost an accident and having just red Michael Arrighi amazing review I have decided to get this game, got it in my local store here in Toronto last Friday. I spent some time during the weekend with the game (VASSAL) and I'm blown away by the quality both in terms of the components as well as gameplay. Ardennes '44 is an amazing wargame yet its focus is quality simulation, my kind of game. I know the map, I know the OOB and reading the rules and going through the expanded examples of play is a pure joy! I'm even thinking pre-ordering the second print...hopefully GMT can add the second part of the campaign (all the way until January 1945).

Thanks Michael Arrighi for introducing me to Ardennes '44, an instant classic! I love the fact that it's very solitaire friendly as well (I mostly play all my wargames solo).

Thread: solitaire anyone ?

giants nut — 2007-11-26T12:56:06+00:00

Hi. Can any one tell me what this game is like for solitaire play ?
Thanks.

Image

sandro — 2007-11-07T17:21:20+00:00

after a quick fight, Panzer Lehr took Bastogne (iron cross come from Clash of Giant II and used to mark objectives gained by german)

Image

sandro — 2007-11-07T16:57:01+00:00

assault of 12 panzer SS on Malmédy

Thread: Re: AAR - GMTs Ardennes '44

kphenninger — 2007-09-30T14:35:22+00:00

Pete, Great AAR. Of all the Bulge games you've played, is A44 your favorite? If so, what is that based on?

Thanks.

Image

pcjohnstone — 2007-07-29T16:51:13+00:00

End of turn 2 - 6th Pz Sector

Image

pcjohnstone — 2007-07-29T16:49:52+00:00

End of turn 1 - 6th Pz Sector

Image

WatchmanX2000 — 2007-01-16T18:56:44+00:00

Box Cover

Thread: Re: Ardennes ’44: not your father’s Bulge game

elbmc1969 — 2006-12-12T20:26:03+00:00

Great review: it really gave me a feel for how the game works in action.

2GG tip.

Thread: A'44 (Ardennes '44) vs BW (Bitter Woods)

Galileo — 2006-12-09T02:05:40+00:00

For me these two games are not in competition; I enjoy them both and highly recommend both of them.

BW is also one of my favorite games, with a clean set of rules. BW is a simpler game but not simple to play, much more chess-like, where the placement of each unit is key, particularly for the Americans during the first 4 to 5 turns. I can pull out BW and teach a knowledgeable gamer how to play it in about 15 minutes and if I what them to be competitive in about 20 mintues BW doesn't have the divisional restrictions, as seen A'44; thus, an aspect is "factor counting" for the optimal attack at the key 4-1 odds ratio with a -1 drm. The 4th edition (L2's Deluxe Edition) has a nice, stiff-card board map; that is oversized, nice for the room for the counters but unfortunately doesn't fit easily on most table tops or under plexiglass, resulting in the occassional "bump and shift", if one isn't careful.

In my opinion, A'44 gives a real flavor for the Bulge at the expense of greatere complexity - at least based on my limited reading: Danny Parker's The Battle of the Bulge, MacDonald's A Time for Trumpets, and various Chapters from Cole's Green Book, amongst other chapters in books and journals. I have yet to read John Eisenhower's Bitter Woods nor Toland's well regarded work.

Thus, I tend to play BW more FTF and occassionaly on-line but will do more solo with A'44 when looking at things Bulge.

And to both Bill and Steve thanks for the nice comments regarding the review.

Thread: Re: Ardennes '44: not your father's Bulge game

FlatWorm — 2006-12-08T21:44:04+00:00

Michael, One of the best WG reviews I've read anywhere: well-written, and thorough without detail-overkill. As good as your Cyberboard gameboxes ... and those are the best I've seen.

A question, if you happen to see this: how do you like playing A'44 vs Bitter Woods?

Thread: Re: Ardennes ’44: not your father’s Bulge game

wargamer66 — 2006-12-08T05:54:03+00:00

Excellent review! I've heard this is the best Bulge game out there; your review makes it sound like the rumor is true.

Thread: Ardennes ’44: not your father’s Bulge game

Galileo — 2006-12-07T15:03:42+00:00

For those who have not tried A’44 (Ardennes ‘44) are, in my opinion, missing a spectacular game. A’44 sets a new standard in game design and development. With 22 pages of rules, 8 pages of a detailed example of play, designer notes, counter manifests, and an index, a Bulge game is found of moderate to high complexity. A’44 has a tremendous amount of playing subtlety by amalgamating several aspects of game design into a wonderful work of art. Okay, the graphic presentation is another usual ‘ho-hum’ product we expect from the crew at GMT, in others words, fantastic! Yes, the introduction is glowing but A’44 really does glow, and not with nuclear waste.

A’44 is the “Battle of the Bulge” from the initial opening on December 16, 1944 through December 26, 1944. The Allied counter offensive and eventual elimination of “the Bulge” is not included. The Third Army’s offensive from Dec 22 to Dec 26 to relieve Bastogne and to drive a wedge to Houffalize are encompassed within the time frame but not as a separate scenario.

A particular emphasis in the game is on armor and the ability, or inability, to concentrate and coordinate in the difficult terrain typical of the Ardennes. Thus, armor units are generally represented with battalion-sized units, although the majority of infantry units are regiment-size. A’44 has more individual units than the typical regiment-sized Bulge game. Armor is fast, powerful, and difficult to get it where you need it.

Only units from two divisions may cooperate in an attack. This forces the player to concentrate divisions while on the attack but allows for easy dispersal of units when on the defense, without any rules complexities. Thus, you will not see or use individual regiments running off here and there to add that extra combat strength to gain the magical column shift by increasing the odds. A very elegant and flexible solution to a perennial design issue of keeping operational units together but allowing them disperse as needed in defensive situations.

A third key aspect is the very restrictive stacking rule. A maximum of 3 stacking points is allowed per hex, generally, no more than two units. Some large regiments have 3 stacking points. With most division comprised of 3 regiments and add some armor battalions, concentration is difficult but essential.

When you see the numerous tank battalions, 2-division limit on attack, and stacking limitations; the gamer begins to gain some of the appreciation the local commanders had in trying to execute mobile warfare in the Ardennes. While not impossible, the challenges are formidable to concentrate and consistently achieve overwhelming odds.

Movement is an example of the subtle complexity in the design providing the gamer with tremendous options. There are 3 types of movement, tactical, regular, and strategic/extended. Tactical allows a unit to move up to two hexes, into virtually any terrain; yes, there are some limits and exceptions, such as not being able to enter prohibited terrain, and units can not easily cross unbridged rives, and wooded rough hexsides. Regular movement allows a unit to use all of their movement factors, essentially to travel further along roads and clear terrain, but the going is very slow off road and even along secondary roads. Roads are of two types, primary and secondary, with primary roads representing the wider, better paved roads, and secondary roads representing the narrower, and unpaved/gravel roads. Extended/strategic mode allows units to travel furthest when not in contact with the enemy, regardless of location. Additionally, the foot sloggers, ground pounders, (Allied Infantry), have trucks but this take time to load and at a significant defensive disadvantage. All these are covered in a just a page or two of rules.

One concern raised is that units may use strategic movement (SM) in any direction, including deep into enemy territory or behind friendly lines. While SM in enemy territory is concern, as players develop experience in how to use the “movement markers,” reinforcements, and breakdown units, such surprises will likely be few and far between. At the present moment, the jury is out on the impact of using strategic movement when in enemy territory. In a situation as fluid as “The Bulge” defining lines, town/city control is difficult without substantial booking keeping, so, solutions may prove to be cumbersome and somewhat elusive.

What are these “movement markers” previously allude to? There are 3 types of markers “traffic markers,” “Grief markers,” and “roadblocks.” Traffic and Grief markers have the same function, only the Germans play the “Grief markers” and the Allies play the “traffic markers.” These markers increase movement costs through such hexes and as such represent all the problems beyond the commander’s control associated with advancing in a combat area, congestion, delaying tactics, hesitancy, and the myriad of SNAFUs. Each side begins with 6 markers and then two are removed at random – and no marker may be place within one hex of another. The two that are removed are repositioned the next turn and two are randomly withdrawn. Thus, each player has control over two markers each turn. Over the course of the game, the Germans lose the ability to place all 6 markers. Roadblocks are markers that have no chance of random removal and may be repositioned each turn, representing small unit tactics, and other activities to harass and confuse the enemy. Roadblocks represent a more focused attempt by the ‘high’ command to harass and delay the enemy.

While there is no separate reserve, exploitation or mechanized movement phase, the advance after combat incorporates these concepts. Advance after combat may be performed in any direction and the first hex does not have to be the defender’s hex, “a heresy in game design,” as stated by the designer. Such “thinking out of the box” combines both the exploitation phase with the combat results, allowing the attacker to generate some holes in any defensive line. And if combat is very successful a small number of units may even undertake a second attack, termed breakthrough combat.

The game uses ZOC-bonds. Two units, one hex apart, generate a defense that prohibits the movement of enemy units. ZOC-bonds may be either along a hexside or encompass and entire hex. ZOC-bonds allow units to project a wider defensive front without additional units, or a smaller unit scale. ZOC-bonds are fragile defensive lines, a break in a line at a key location will result in substantial hole, couple with the advance after combat in any direction, breaches will occur. The use of ZOC-bonds requires a different approach from other games and generates quite a “Bulge” feel. The Allies are constantly forming desperate defensive positions that the German are able to break, albeit, usually at some loses. The Germans are able to gain ground but not without a struggle and loses, while the Allies are constantly scrambling to form defensive lines.

The ZOC-bonds allow the defender to form a line. The advance in any direction after combat allows the attacker to punch holes in the line.

Defensive terrain and positions are expressed in terms of additional combat factors added to the total strength in the hex. The attacker’s strength may be halved when assaulting unfavorable terrain, such as across rivers.

The sequence of play has a subtle tweak. Each day has 2 player turns, German then Allied. Between each two day turns is an abbreviated night phase, where each side may move and attack with units previously designated in the PM turn. However, here the order is reversed, the Allies move and combat first and then the Germans; thus, creating a mini-exploitation sequence. For the Allies, the feeling is more traditional a full movement followed by a limited exploitation phase. This allows the Allies an opportunity to counter attack units that advance too far and potentially minimize that run for the hills approach in other games. For the Germans, the approach is different, a limited initial move/combat followed by a full turn. Thus, the German is able to create some limited opportunities an exploit them. Yet, the sequence does somewhat telegraph the move to Allied player which creates another sense of tension for both sides. The challenge is change in turn order requiring players to approach each side with a distinctive approach. Units the player wishes to use at night requires pre-planning, as they must be designated in the immediately preceding afternoon turn, “PM” turn in game parlance. Units so designated, not only telegraph their intent to the opposing player, radio traffic is unusual voluminous; these units have very limited movement in the PM turn nor may they attack in the PM turn.

Given the rules complexity, multitude of options and situations, questions are bound to arise. The support provided by the designer through Consimworld allows almost immediate answers to one’s questions. Gamer’s should be very appreciative of the time and energy that designers and developers devote to the question and answer sessions. Before Comsimworld and the web, one must wonder how games of such intricacy, or any game for that matter, were played?

A’44 puts you in “The Bulge” either as the Allies or the Germans. The German army will advance but there will losses along the way, which if there are too many loses the offensive will grind to a halt. There are not enough units to concentrate everywhere; thus, while clearing the shoulders is possible, trying to completely clear both shoulders will come at the expense of reaching the Meuse. The German player must make some choices regarding the focus and direction of the assault. The Allied player is constantly trying to pull enough units together to form a coherent defense, although careful use of terrain, roadblocks, traffic markers, reinforcements, and breakdown units, will aid to stymie the initial onslaught. The game has both players on the edge of their seats trying to maximize their positions.

A’44 is a winner; a superb 2-player game, with numerous options and challenges for both sides. The game will take considerable time, not something that is possible in an evening. An hour to two per turn would not be an unreasonable expectation, excluding the night turns which consume just a few minutes. The campaign game would take around 30 or so hours and a long weekend would be required for two somewhat fast and relatively game knowledgeable players. The players should be somewhat cordial, as some questions and issues may arise, requiring some friendly discussion. A’44 will be a prized game for years to come.

Summary Information:
Ardennes ’44: The Battle of the Bulge
© 2003 GMT Games
Designer: Mark Simonitch
Developers: John Kranz (Alpha), Tony Curtis (Beta),
2 Map Sheets: total 30” x 37”
3 sets of counters, total 570 pieces
2 Player aid cards
1 Rules Booklet (40 pages)
1 Quick Start Display

Image

GaryJK — 2006-09-26T14:38:41+00:00

Turn 5 of a VASSAL game of A'44

Image

elijah234 — 2006-08-05T06:29:00+00:00

Quick Start Display - Echternach sector.

Image

elijah234 — 2006-08-05T06:04:22+00:00

Quick Start Display - Road to Clervaux.

Image

elijah234 — 2006-08-05T05:58:11+00:00

Quick Start Display - 1st SS sector.

Thread: Re: Anyone here?

Darksan — 2006-03-05T02:39:06+00:00

Use the FAQ Lui. {Think Star Wars}

Skip Franklin (playtester)

Thread: Re: Ardennes '44 vs Deluxe Bitterwoods

Darksan — 2006-03-05T02:37:03+00:00

You are talking about the two best games on the Battle of the Bulge so this may be a hard decision for you unless you decide to get and/or play both.

It my opnion that Ardennes '44 is the better simulation and Bitter Woods is a great game. If you want a good game get Bitter Woods and the Expansion with the better formatted rules (formatted by the designer of Ardennes '44 mind you). If complexity does not drive you off then Ardennes '44 is the better simulation. Both games are well supported by designers and companies.

I have played Bitter Woods (2nd Edition) with the designer and playtested Ardennes '44 with the designer.

Final recommendation: Buy and play both.

Thread: Re: Errata

Darksan — 2006-03-05T02:23:39+00:00

The Engineer Counters had a *.png file posted on ConsimWorld.Com. I'll post it.

Thread: Re: Errata

ekted — 2006-03-04T19:26:37+00:00

I have that. I was hoping that if I decided to buy this that I could get a mapboard and counters with these errata corrected.