Is Battle of the Bulge worth buying?

[Antholin]

Hey all,
I just wanted to get a general opinion of Battle of the Bulge. I see that no one has posted in this particular game thread for some time and was curious to see if anyone still played it. I am thinking about picking it up, but have gone undecided. I love A&A Revised and A&A Europe. Is the gameplay similar to those two sets, or is it more of a rushed game to decide where your resources will go?

Any opinion, positive or negative of A&A Battle of the Bulge expansion will be appreciated. Thanks.

[Hobbes]

Hey,

Battle of the Bulge was the third AA game I bought (the other 2 were Classic and Revised).
Here's my opinion of it.

Pros
- The combat/movement system. It is completely different from Revised and much more suited for tactical combat, allowing for retreats, terrain factors, winning iniciative and so on. Takes a while to get used and you need to unlearn anything but it is worth it.
- The reinforcement/supply system. Supplies and trucks are the key to victory and your logistic skills can well determine the fate of a game.
- The new pieces: Tiger tanks, Me109s and the US and German trucks.

Cons
- The limited options for victory. G has a slight more options on which cities to capture but the Allies win by simply stopping them.
- The predictability. My games tend to end with slight variations of the front line. At the beginning the Germans look unstopable, by the end they are very limited because of lack of supplies.
- The ratio of German wins. I've seen the other player winning as Allies but I've never won with them. Although it's probably a matter of bad dice or me not using them properly since other players state the game is not unbalanced.

Overall I'm not disappointed so if you have the money, yeah get it.
-

[Antholin]

Sweet, thank you. It certainly sounds more challenging on a different level, as opposed to Revised.

[Hobbes]

Whenever I play board these days (been a while...my mate went to live in another town) I'd always press for Bulge because the gameplay is more fluid than Revised. Like I said, it can be more engaging because of its randomness but at the same time it is a somewhat set movement.

[frimmel]

I agree with most of what Hobbes said. I no longer think that the Allies have NO SHOT of winning. The learning curve for the Allies is steeper and you need a bit of luck on the first turn but not that much. I'm starting to think the Axis should have the most trouble winning.

It is a very different game from Revised or Europe. It is more a traditional wargame than the others in that it is attempting to recreate the battle and make you deal with the considerations the commanders had. Reinforcements are set ahead of time such and such units arrive on this turn and so on. Some folks don't like not controlling what their 'new' units will be.

Random casualties in the comabt system and the logistics aspect of getting supplies to the troops really set it apart for me. You can see better than average hits for a combat and still not be very lucky. Some folks find that frustrating-- having hits go to waste. You can have a whole prong of your assault sit useless because you're short a truck.

You can usually finish a game in under 3:45.

It is a good change of pace from the games with IPCs.

[frimmel]

You might check out my strategy articles although I think they could use some revision.

[Krieghund]

This game is absolutely nothing like Revised or Europe.  It's important to remember that when reading the rules, as you shouldn't assume that anything works the same way here that it does there.  As Frimmel said, this is more of a traditional wargame.

The logistics aspect (as well as the availability and use of air power) makes a huge difference in planning and strategy, especially for the Axis.  The Allies have their own problems early in the game dealing with balancing holding ground versus conserving units to withstand the final German push for victory.

If there's any weakness in this game at all, I'd say that the optimal strategy for the Axis seems to be ahistorical.  They seem better off advancing the front as a solid wall rather than as a spear thrust up the middle.  This is due to the victory conditions being to control a certain number of points worth of cities, rather than the historical objective of reaching Antwerp.  I don't see this as a major problem though, since the historical Antwerp objective was pretty much a fantasy anyway.

This may be my favorite A&A game, and it's certainly in the top two.  For your reference, the rules can be found here and the errata and FAQ here.

[frimmel]

On Krieg's ahistorical point I have to agree. Although early on in playing you did have some more pronounced breakthrus but as the Allies have learned what it takes to win it is more a steady wall.

I think this game lends credence to the idea that the Blitzkrieg was not some new notion of warfare but a PR routine. An interesting book on the subject by John Mosier The Blitzkrieg Myth suggests that it isn't how far the tanks can go but how well fresh gas keeps up that determines the distance an assault can cover in a day.

He claims that even with the greater mechanization the distances of advances were not appreciably greater between WWI and WWII and were determined by supply and support for the tanks.

In BOTB sometimes you can blitz tanks deep but they'll find themselves sitting without supply and vulnerable.

[Antholin]

Well, thank you all for the comments and I appreciate the good feedback. I have been looking into it more and will certainly be picking it up. Also, the fact that it is a two person game will be easier to find another available player. I am especially interested in the idea of supply tokens and only a set number of available reinforcements. It appears that Battle of the Bulge will certainly take a different skill set and ingenuity to play through than other A&A expansions. Thanks again.