Hiya Forum,
Here is a video I have created on youtube of the set up of AnA Battle of the Bulge. I hope it come to some help for you to enjoy the game!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unt9SvCuVZU
Enjoy,
BH
No love for bulge?
-
Everything has a “cheap” feeling to the game. I complained about the goofy storage system that came with the game, now look what we get in these new games….nothing.
I like the game and my buddy borrowed it, played with his son and they enjoyed it so its going to them.
-
I love it. Love that the Historical units are listed. Makes it more real for me.
-
Sure, it’s a ‘winter’ game, but it has no winter rules to give it flavor, so they just represented that fact with the blah-boring background. I’m certain that with the right artistic direction, this game could have been waaay more popular than it was. The supply rules, casualty randomization, and retreat-push mechanics have significant replayability, nevertheless, so I wouldn’t be surprised if the basic engine of BotB pops its head up again in another land-based battle title in the future, e.g. Stalingrad or El Alamein. Here’s hoping that something along those lines ends up getting produced…
While I really like the “basic engine” of BOTB and hope to see it again, I disagree that the game would have been more popular with better graphic design of the set. While I agree that the set is pretty bland one reason it is unpopular is the basic engine. It is too different than the global Axis and Allies Game. Another reason is no one ‘gets it’ right away from a strategy point of view (I’m rather shocked that so far in this thread there hasn’t been a “How do you win with the Allies” question.)
I also point out that the system was not used in Guadalcanal. Since Guadalcanal we’ve gotten 7 versions of the game we’ve been playing since the eighties. And since there isn’t really a hint that we’ll be getting anything but ‘traditional A&A’ I’m inclined to think that the graphic design is pretty far down the list of ‘problems’ with the game.
-
Sure, it’s a ‘winter’ game, but it has no winter rules to give it flavor, so they just represented that fact with the blah-boring background. I’m certain that with the right artistic direction, this game could have been waaay more popular than it was. The supply rules, casualty randomization, and retreat-push mechanics have significant replayability, nevertheless, so I wouldn’t be surprised if the basic engine of BotB pops its head up again in another land-based battle title in the future, e.g. Stalingrad or El Alamein. Here’s hoping that something along those lines ends up getting produced…
While I really like the “basic engine” of BOTB and hope to see it again, I disagree that the game would have been more popular with better graphic design of the set. While I agree that the set is pretty bland one reason it is unpopular is the basic engine. It is too different than the global Axis and Allies Game. Another reason is no one ‘gets it’ right away from a strategy point of view (I’m rather shocked that so far in this thread there hasn’t been a “How do you win with the Allies” question.)
I also point out that the system was not used in Guadalcanal. Since Guadalcanal we’ve gotten 7 versions of the game we’ve been playing since the eighties. And since there isn’t really a hint that we’ll be getting anything but ‘traditional A&A’ I’m inclined to think that the graphic design is pretty far down the list of ‘problems’ with the game.
Hi Frimmel,
I’m fully aware that the Guadalcanal system was different (and in many, many ways better) than the BotB system. The GC mechanism for determining random casualties, for example, was much more elegant and intuitive than BotB’s. GC’s division of unit combat values for land/sea/air units, near-simultaneous player turns, and the reduction of combat to one round of rolls (allowing shared occupation of territories and sea zones with enemies) were all revolutionary features for the series, and opened up interesting design space. That’s why I’d rather see GC revisited than BotB.
Given that slightly different versions of the AA50 map have been rehashed for the subsequent 7 A&A games, I agree that design has taken a back seat to consistency. But BotB’s graphics were bad by any measure; its novelty didn’t save it from being both unclear and visually unappealing. I can’t help but think that a better, clearer map design could have really made this game more memorable and well-loved. That’s my main point.
Best,
MIR
-
so essentially the only good thing in the game is the trucks ? the rest of the game can go trash itself? I have been unable to play the game myself since no one to play which is why it will be one of the games I sell, but so far it sounds like it wasn’t a good system.
-
The Guadalcanal combat system is a walk back to regular A&A where every hit counts. 5 successful rolls hit five units where in BOTB that could see all the rolls landing on one unit. It is the standard combat system with a random shot at hitting a more valuable unit. It also walked back to player determined reinforcements. It walked back to moving units into the same spaces as enemy units during combat movement.
Better graphic design which amounts to more or less a different look to the map wouldn’t push the percentage of those who played it and liked it much in either direction. It might have sold more units which might have got us more individual battle games or something on the lines of Memoir '44 with a multitude of scenarios but the system was far too radical a departure.
@Scarapis:
so essentially the only good thing in the game is the trucks ? the rest of the game can go trash itself? I have been unable to play the game myself since no one to play which is why it will be one of the games I sell, but so far it sounds like it wasn’t a good system.
No, there are many good things in the game besides trucks. It is a very interesting system. It just isn’t a traditional A&A system. The game is a lot of fun but it is a radical departure from other A&A games. It is a much more traditional or hex and chit style wargame making much more of an effort to put you in the seat of the battle’s actual commanders. The map could be prettier but it serves. Whether or not you will like the departures is something you’ll have to decide for yourself.
-
No, there are many good things in the game besides trucks. It is a very interesting system. It just isn’t a traditional A&A system. The game is a lot of fun but it is a radical departure from other A&A games. It is a much more traditional or hex and chit style wargame making much more of an effort to put you in the seat of the battle’s actual commanders. The map could be prettier but it serves. Whether or not you will like the departures is something you’ll have to decide for yourself.
I completely agree with frimmel regarding the combat system: it is very interesting and challenging. I’d buy another A&A game based on it (to me Market Garden would be fun since it involves airborne troops, or September 1941 drive to Moscow, or May 1942 drive to the Caucasus), since it could replicate those operational-level scenarios quite well, specially the logistics involved.
I never tried Guadalcanal though.
-
Another reason is no one ‘gets it’ right away from a strategy point of view (I’m rather shocked that so far in this thread there hasn’t been a “How do you win with the Allies” question.)
Btw, how DO you win with the Allies (I never did so far)? ;)
-
We must have played 10+ and at least 4 were Allied victories. Germans being unlucky maybe, running out of supply and hanging on until Air appears.
Not sure if there was an Allied strategy, but not loading hexes too heavily with units helps. Except the 2 or 3 that cannot be lost(ones on North map edge and Bastogne). -
So I got the game today and when I opened it up , low and behold there it is!!! Copy’s of frimmels strategy guides for both axis and allies! It looks like the guy that sold it is a user on this site. Very pleased to see the axis and allies.org logo as soon as I open the box.
I look forward to reading these tips and thanks to you, guy from North Carolina that was kind enough to include them.
-
The Guadalcanal combat system is a walk back to regular A&A where every hit counts. 5 successful rolls hit five units where in BOTB that could see all the rolls landing on one unit. It is the standard combat system with a random shot at hitting a more valuable unit. It also walked back to player determined reinforcements. It walked back to moving units into the same spaces as enemy units during combat movement.
These elements of Guadalcanal that you describe as a ‘walk back’ to regular A&A are virtues, not vices.
Every hit counts?
Great, because I rolled a hit, so I should get a resultant casualty on the enemy side. This fits with player intuitions, and doesn’t make anyone feel ‘cheated’ by laying 5 of their hits on 1 infantry.
Player-determined reinforcements?
Fantastic! The players get to control the order of battle, not a cardboard sheet… This is both more satisfying and skill-testing. One of the main factors I cite to new players about what sets A&A apart from Risk is the ability to choose between a wide range of unit types, and to buy those units that best suit the situation. Imagine how terrible ‘regular’ A&A would be if the purchases for each round were preset by reinforcement cards!
Attacking units move into the same spaces as enemy units?
Perfect. This makes player decisions much clearer to track on the board, and works better with our intuitions of what ‘combat’ entails.
BotB fails to deliver the goods in each of these areas, where Guadalcanal succeeds, and then some.
Let’s consider some other differences:
Each game uses supplies – BotB to enable combat and movement, GC to build and repair infrastructure. I call this a tie, as both seem like interesting and novel uses of supplies. (As an aside, the regular game really should find some role for supplies, even as an optional rule.)
Hex map (BotB) vs. geographical map (GC): Here, I think that GC has the edge; the board is just much more aesthetically pleasing, while retaining its functionality. It makes me want to play the game, where BotB’s Spartan aesthetic is quite off-putting. GC wins.
Unit Choice: BotB has no naval units (as you’d expect in a land battle!), and no extra land units or air units (e.g. half-tracks, snipers, paratroopers, engineers, dive-bombers, etc.) to compensate for this lack of variety. GC has naval units (as you’d expect in an island-to-island battle!), and also a dedicated AAA piece (while BotB has its artillery doing double duty – as well as its being a super-unit on land – leading to an artificial inflation of artillery’s importance). Assuming they’re properly balanced, more unit options make for a more interesting game. GC wins.
Consistency: In GC, all units move according to the same rules. In BotB, planes and trucks move pretty much anywhere they want, while all other units are bound to a separate set of movement rules. In fact, one of the main obstacles to my getting started in BotB was figuring out how trucks were supposed to operate in the rules. They seemed like units imported from a different game: “They move anywhere on roads? They carry what? They can be captured?” I’m certain that a more consistent and intuitive set of rules could have been implemented for trucks in BotB. GC wins.
Combat: GC uses a three-tiered air/sea/land unit combat system, as well as a near-simultaneous player commitment of units (works kind of like throwing in more chips in poker). BotB has a stacking limit (meaning that the balance of opposing forces is usually much tighter) and rules for ‘displacing’ enemy units through involuntary retreats. I think that both systems are interesting and contain elements that could be profitably implemented into the main game. Let’s call this one a tie, too.
Reviewing all of the considerations above, I must conclude that Guadalcanal is the better system. It’s not that I have ‘no love’ for BotB, it’s that I have ‘way more love’ for its competing battle game (D-Day doesn’t even qualify for this competition, IMO). Thanks for the occasion to further scrutinize my feelings on this matter.
Best, MIR
-
The Guadalcanal combat system is a walk back to regular A&A where every hit counts. 5 successful rolls hit five units where in BOTB that could see all the rolls landing on one unit. It is the standard combat system with a random shot at hitting a more valuable unit. It also walked back to player determined reinforcements. It walked back to moving units into the same spaces as enemy units during combat movement.
These elements of Guadalcanal that you describe as a ‘walk back’ to regular A&A are virtues, not vices.
I’d say that (and your entire post really) illustrates why we’ve gotten nothing but modestly tweaked reprints for 5 years.
-
So I got the game today and when I opened it up , low and behold there it is!!! **Copy’s of frimmels strategy guides for both axis and allies! ** It looks like the guy that sold it is a user on this site. Very pleased to see the axis and allies.org logo as soon as I open the box.
I look forward to reading these tips and thanks to you, guy from North Carolina that was kind enough to include them.
Awesome. :mrgreen:
-
The way the allies win, is by managing a successful retreat, and keeping units ALIVE.
You’re not looking to defeat the German onslaught, you’re just looking to prevent them from taking the win.
Very simple theory IMO…
-
The way the allies win, is by managing a successful retreat, and keeping units ALIVE.
You’re not looking to defeat the German onslaught, you’re just looking to prevent them from taking the win.
Very simple theory IMO…
Yep, but it is not what is usually ‘done’ in A&A. Add that to Make It Round’s list of why BOTB ‘fails’ (on the one hand complaining about not enough unit types while on the other complaining because he couldn’t figure out how trucks work) and folks have a terribly hard time getting their head’s around the whole thing.
-
The way the allies win, is by managing a successful retreat, and keeping units ALIVE.
You’re not looking to defeat the German onslaught, you’re just looking to prevent them from taking the win.
Very simple theory IMO…
Yep, but it is not what is usually ‘done’ in A&A. Add that to Make It Round’s list of why BOTB ‘fails’ (on the one hand complaining about not enough unit types while on the other complaining because he couldn’t figure out how trucks work) and folks have a terribly hard time getting their head’s around the whole thing.
Assuming that they are well balanced and made consistent with the way other units operate, more units to choose from is always a plus.
My beef was not that they included a truck unit in the game, but rather the cavalier manner in which they attached radically different rules for its behavior and function.
There’s no contradiction inherent in what I’m saying.
An extreme example: A sculpt made to look like a UFO, which according to the rules should appear on a random territory or sea zone at the end of each player’s turn, destroying every other unit there, would be counter-intuitive and unwelcome. It just doesn’t fit in the context of the game (like having tanks that move ‘2’ but trucks that move ‘infinite’). You probably would want to exclude it from the game or add house rules to fix it (although you would still save the sculpt for one reason or another).
-
Look, Make it Round, all of your complaints add up to “It isn’t ‘regular’ A&A.” Enough of the rest of the audience for these games share your opinion (or the Powers That Be think enough share your opinion) so what we’ve gotten is nearing on 8 revisions of ‘regular’ A&A over the last 5 years. Since Guadalcanal appears to be even less popular than BOTB despite all of the walk backs towards ‘regular’ A&A, I hold no hope that we’re going to ever see anything on the lines of BOTB ever again. I find that very sad on a number of levels.
-
I wish there was a similar game. I love my Bulge!
And probably could learn to love Guadalcanal if I gave it a few more goes: do not have the time. -
I loved Bulge, and D-Day haven’t tried GC. I was very excited when D-Day was released, again excited for Bulge and again excited for GC unfortantly I never got GC due to life getting in the way but I still plan on buying it one day. I like both Bulge and D-Day so much when I started rebuilding my A&A collection I prechased them before Revised, Classic and the old Europe/Pacific games. I was so very much hoping they would cont. doing the same type of games. I was thinking and looking forward to stuff like Kursk, The Invasion of Italy, North Africa, Battle of the Atlantic, Iwo Jima, Phillpines all stuff I would have loved to have seen the light of day. Alot of people complain about D-Day, Bulge, and GC and even more people complain about how none of the games I’ve listed has ever been released. Well complaining about the games they did do isn’t a very good way of getting them to do the games you want them to do. I would love something more than just reprinting and tweeking old games.
-
Look, Make it Round, all of your complaints add up to “It isn’t ‘regular’ A&A.” Enough of the rest of the audience for these games share your opinion (or the Powers That Be think enough share your opinion) so what we’ve gotten is nearing on 8 revisions of ‘regular’ A&A over the last 5 years. Since Guadalcanal appears to be even less popular than BOTB despite all of the walk backs towards ‘regular’ A&A, I hold no hope that we’re going to ever see anything on the lines of BOTB ever again. I find that very sad on a number of levels.
Simply untrue. I lauded the Guadalcanal system for its 3-tier combat system, and simultaneous unit movement, neither of which appear in the core game. But hey, if the core game bores you, you don’t need to play A&A… there are plenty of other games out there for you.
Lamenting BotB’s lack of popularity is like getting worked up about the demise of some obscure tribal dialect in New Guinea… You could do it, but there isn’t much point to it.
Suggested Topics
