Four things about the rules that are bothering me

[Croix de guerre]

Will El Alamein have the same rules as the Bulge? If yes I would like to share 4 things that are bothering me with the current rules.

1 - Breakthrough

I don't think armor should be allowed to exceed its maximum movement by using breakthrough. Currently the situation is that armor can be expected to move faster if weak enemy units are in the middle of the path. I don't see how it can make any sense. In a real world situation any enemy along the path would almost always slow down progression, never speed it up – or maybe in rare circumstances that could not be expected anyway.

The iPad should be able to track the past movement of a unit and propose breakthrough if it is not exceeding max movement, and only to the eligible areas. As a corollary, we could get rid of the special 'no breakthrough through forest' rule which only purpose seems to be to mitigate the breakthrough issue.

2 - Out-of-supply

Being out-of-supply should have a different effect on armor and infantry

Actually I am not sure what being out of supply represents. With the time scale of the Bulge it cannot be about food and water. I assume it is about petrol and ammunition. Now, being out of petrol is obviously a big deal for armor but it is irrelevant to infantry.

3 - Attack from more than one area

This is the weirdest. Currently, a unit can fire defensively once for each area the attacker is moving from. Therefore the more areas the unit is attacked from the more lethal it is in defense. I feel something is wrong although I just cannot put my finger on it. What is the sense of that? Do defending units get angry when attacked from different angles and turn into berserk monsters?

A way to mitigate that would be to prevent any unit from firing defensively more than once per day.

4 - Special rules

Bulge uses too many special rules in my opinion for such a small game: first turn, commandos, air support, air supply, axis supply, artillery, British reinforcements...
I know it is all for the sake of historical accuracy but I cannot help thinking it could have been avoided.
For instance, what is the need for the 3 attack rounds just before turn 1? Couldn't we have the game start on turn 1 with the units already engaged?
What would go wrong if we removed the special rules about Axis armor supply before the 19th?

[blahblah3502]

re: Breakthrough, the maximum non-combat movement is 3 (strategic movement without combat) so a combat breakthrough move bonus is feasible in the "physics" of the game world. I imagine breakthrough happening because when all enemy units are wiped out in an area, the tank commanders abandon their usual caution and have a limited spurt of full speed movement. I agree this requires some suspension of disbelief, but its a game, and I don't feel its completely illogical.

re: out of supply, you're right there are real life differences though infantry divisions have lots of motor vehicles too (including tanks typically and self-propelled artillery in some cases). Trucks and half-tracks are crucial for US infantry especially. German infantry divisions have far fewer trucks (hence no strategic movement for ordinary infantry here) and are more reliant on foot and lots of horsies (which still need feeding). And of course infantry divisions can run through their small arms and artillery ammo pretty quickly

re: attack from different areas issue, I like your point

re: special rules, I really like them since they make the game more "historical" and unique! but I can see how some players would prefer a more straightforward setup - maybe in future updates, there could be a special rules/no special rules switch in preferences

[Croix de guerre]

I imagine breakthrough happening because when all enemy units are wiped out in an area, the tank commanders abandon their usual caution and have a limited spurt of full speed movement. I agree this requires some suspension of disbelief, but its a game, and I don't feel its completely illogical.

Yes, I have done this particular rationalisation myself, but what is illogical is that a good Allies commander is expected to carefully remove all weak units in order to prevent accelerating the Axis armor.

[blahblah3502]

I imagine breakthrough happening because when all enemy units are wiped out in an area, the tank commanders abandon their usual caution and have a limited spurt of full speed movement. I agree this requires some suspension of disbelief, but its a game, and I don't feel its completely illogical.

Yes, I have done this particular rationalisation myself, but what is illogical is that a good Allies commander is expected to carefully remove all weak units in order to prevent accelerating the Axis armor.

hmmm, thats a good point.

[Yojimbo252]

Will El Alamein have the same rules as the Bulge? If yes I would like to share 4 things that are bothering me with the current rules.

I would like to think that for points 1, 2 and 3 the same rule set would apply across both titles keeping the game mechanics consistent. For point 4 I assume El Alamein will have it's own set of special rules.

1 - Breakthrough
It's an interesting point. One thing I'm very conscious of when playing as Allies is not to place a weak unit within the 2 movement range of Axis armour which if attacked and a breakthrough is achieved would extend the Axis armour range to effectively 3.

As a result an empty region is sometimes a better defence than one defended by a unit which I would agree seems counter intuitive. But changing the rules to somehow take into account how far the units have already moved to engage in combat when determining breakthroughs adds to rule complexity which isn't desirable.

2 - Out-of-supply
I'm not in favour of any changes here as again if you start splitting the effects of supply depending on troop types, it adds to the complexity.

I'd also suggest fuel isn't irrelevant to infantry. Yes the men may have marched on foot but vehicles were used to support them by towing AT guns, AA batteries and the like. So an infantry division will include vehicles, just not in sufficient numbers as a mechanised unit would.

Supply also includes food and munitions and a lack of it effects a division's combat effectiveness. If you can't fight effectively and are cut off from your HQ and the rest of your army you are forced to stay put and defend where you stand and this pretty much applies whether you are Infantry or Armour.



3 - Attack from more than one area
I don't have a problem with defenders being able to return fire each impulse. This represents piecemeal attacks made over a number of impulses which the attacker ought to be punished for. The more effective way is to combine your units into a single force that can concentrate its attack in one impulse and the game rewards that by allowing the defenders to return fire only once.


4 - Special rules
These are necessary to keep the flavour of the period. If you don't have a special rule for say air support how else can that be modelled? If you start representing air support as actual units that you move around and so on you're actually introducing more complexity to the game. If you leave air support out entirely then how do you represent the fact that the Allies had air superiority which had a big influence on Axis operations?

The other interesting thing is you mention that Bulge uses too many special rules but in points 1 and 2 above you're suggesting introducing more which seems a little contradictory to my mind.

[Croix de guerre]

I am not proposing to change the rules for Bulge. I am just saying that changes should be considered for the next games.

But changing the rules to somehow take into account how far the units have already moved to engage in combat when determining breakthroughs adds to rule complexity which isn't desirable.

I disagree. The rule I propose for breakthrough is less complex. Don't forget I propose to get rid of the "no breakthrough into forest" rule. And don't forget that on iPad bookkeeping is trivial compared to a tabletop game.

I'm not in favour of any changes here as again if you start splitting the effects of supply depending on troop types, it adds to the complexity.

OK. I see your point. Let us forget about my point 2 about out-of-supply. It is not really a big issue anyway, especially compared to points 1 and 3.

3 - Attack from more than one area
I don't have a problem with defenders being able to return fire each impulse. This represents piecemeal attacks made over a number of impulses which the attacker ought to be punished for. The more effective way is to combine your units into a single force that can concentrate its attack in one impulse and the game rewards that by allowing the defenders to return fire only once.

The current rule forces the attacker to wait for the next day to bring reinforcements. What is the logic of that? How do you justify that there is absolutely no incentive for the attacker to improve the odds by moving more troops during the same day?
There are plenty of ways to mitigate that: for instance why is the buffering effect of terrain unnecessarily reset between impulses? The whole point looks like a major flaw to me.

4 - Special rules
These are necessary to keep the flavour of the period. If you don't have a special rule for say air support how else can that be modelled?

There are plenty of ways to implement air support in a more cinematic way than a near invisible dice modifier. But air support is not even the most useless special rule by far. Take British Reinforcement for instance. Why wouldn't they be allowed to cross the Meuse? I don't even know the historical fact that is supposed to justify that rule, and I don't really care: each game is a "what if" deviation from historical reality anyway.
Actually I have never been able to apply most of the special rules because I have never been able to play into late December.

[Yojimbo252]

I am not proposing to change the rules for Bulge. I am just saying that changes should be considered for the next games.

Fair enough. I accept there will need to be new rules introduced in the next game for certain aspects but I'd also like the underlying mechanics to remain relatively consistent across the titles.  If you've got a good formula that players are comfortable with stick with it.

Regarding Breakthroughs I'm not against addressing the 'extra' movement range if it can be done so in a way that keeps the Breakthrough rules relatively straight forward for players to grasp.

I can see how getting rid of the Forest rule for Breakthroughs simplifies things and I can see an argument for doing that.  The problem in doing so is the Forest rule in my opinion offers an important distinction between that particular terrain type and the other more open areas. Take that away and you water the terrain effects down somewhat.

 There are plenty of ways to mitigate that: for instance why is the buffering effect of terrain unnecessarily reset between impulses? The whole point looks like a major flaw to me.

Why shouldn't a defender be able to take advantage of their entrenched position from subsequent oncoming waves of attacks?

4 - Special rules Why wouldn't they be allowed to cross the Meuse? I don't even know the historical fact that is supposed to justify that rule, and I don't really care: each game is a "what if" deviation from historical reality anyway.

I don't know that particular historical aspect of the British involvement so can't really comment but if there is a historical justification then I think it's fair enough to include it.

I think developers have a difficult tight rope to walk in terms of balancing realism vs gameplay.  Although to some the rule might seem arbitrary, if it helps maintain the historical flavour of the period and the restrictions and constraints the opposing armies had to endure then I think that's a good thing.  

Imagine if they decided to remove the Axis fuel restrictions and Allied air support because we didn't care about the historical justifications of those special rules either.

[rddfxx]

The "granularity" of an area movement game is a critical design element. In BotB, the areas depicted are roughly division to corps level boundaries, given the stacking limit of 3 units. Thus, each player is organizing, reorganizing his available forces into improvized corps as they are moved area to area. So the restrictions on attacks, such as reinforcing battles in progress, really models C3 problems coordinating efforts across command boundaries. If we had a very fine grid, such as obtains in DG's Wacht Am Rhein, coordination may/would be easier to effect at e.g. the battalion level, but larger commands still wouldn't cross fronts any easier than in BotB. As regards supply, the abstraction in BotB is a nod to a compromized road net in the command's rear; again, because the areas modelled are large, the specific C3 effects are broadbrushed. Perhaps the effects are overstated for infantry, but the case can be made that low quality German VG divisions are the only pure infantry in the game, since Allied infantry, including airborne, had substantial intrinsic or temporary motorization. Finally, breakthrough is another abtraction, representing the seizure and operational control of the road net in the target area(s). The concept of a movement allowance is really stretched in this context. Certainly, the interaction of BotB's variable time accounting and the large map areas can result in some wild projections of force through space in a blink of the eye, but the game's the thing..

[Croix de guerre]

So the restrictions on attacks, such as reinforcing battles in progress, really models C3 problems coordinating efforts across command boundaries.

Probably, but it can be argued it could have been better modeled. Being already engaged does not have any effect on defending units. Why that?

As regards supply

I agree with your analysis of the supply rules.

Finally, breakthrough is another abtraction, representing the seizure and operational control of the road net in the target area(s).

The abstraction is not perfect: taking control of the road net in the target area should always be easier when the area is not defended, not more difficult.

[jeffd]

4 - Special rules Why wouldn't they be allowed to cross the Meuse? I don't even know the historical fact that is supposed to justify that rule, and I don't really care: each game is a "what if" deviation from historical reality anyway.

I don't know that particular historical aspect of the British involvement so can't really comment but if there is a historical justification then I think it's fair enough to include it.

Don't have the time to get into a comprehensive discussion of what's going on in this thread- other than to reassure you that I'm reading it!- but I did want to comment on this. Montgomery was very concerned that the the Germans had "one more stab" left in them until relatively late in the battle, and held the bulk of the British XXX Corps in reserve to cut off any last lunge for the Meuse. Just as one quick example, historically the Guards Armored Division was not engaged at all during the timeframe the game covers. We wanted to have some way of acknowledging that in the game.[/quote]

I think developers have a difficult tight rope to walk in terms of balancing realism vs gameplay.

That's definitely true. In this case there was also a gameplay justification: if the German player doesn't do as well during the first part of the game holding back the British gives them a fighting chance to at least hold onto what they've gained.

[blahblah3502]

Don't have the time to get into a comprehensive discussion of what's going on in this thread- other than to reassure you that I'm reading it!- but I did want to comment on this. Montgomery was very concerned that the the Germans had "one more stab" left in them until relatively late in the battle, and held the bulk of the British XXX Corps in reserve to cut off any last lunge for the Meuse. Just as one quick example, historically the Guards Armored Division was not engaged at all during the timeframe the game covers. We wanted to have some way of acknowledging that in the game.

There could be minor scenario variants in future updates which would be the same BotB scenario but with What Ifs? re: order of battle like the kind of thing above

e.g. alt scenario 1 ) Monty doesn't hold back British XXX Corps forces and they're available to cross Meuse on day they arrive (same day as current main scenario)
alt scenario 2) Panzer Lehr division starts as a 7 or 8 pip elite panzer division rather than a worn down version of itself (my understanding that the super elite Panzer Lehr was brought up to full strength for the Ardennes campaign but then badly damaged/worn down in a more minor battle (and then patchily reinforced with a lot of sub-elite units) not long before start of Ardennes campaign, so this scenario avoids this "waste" of Panzer Lehr), and the Germans suffer fewer traffic jams so a few more panzer and infantry divisions are available on the start day rather than the day or two after.

[jeffd]

That's definitely an idea. I would be concerned with giving the Germans any more smash than they already have at the start of the game- the first few days are, ahem, interesting enough for the Allies as is without giving them even more Panthers to face down in their Jeeps. It could possibly be done with enough playtesting, but to be honest, if we're doing an intensive playtest right now there are some other things I'd rather have our testers beating on. Trust me.

[Yojimbo252]

In this case there was also a gameplay justification: if the German player doesn't do as well during the first part of the game holding back the British gives them a fighting chance to at least hold onto what they've gained.

It's not unusual for games to include 'comeback' mechanics to try to haul a player back when they're gaining a substantial lead to increase the likelihood that the race to the finish is tight. Albeit it's probably more common in multiplayer Euro's rather than 2 player wargames.

I don't have an issue including such comeback mechanics but playing devil's advocate they can lead to situations where players will manipulate the game state to take advantage of it.

If I can use the BotB example which has been discussed a few times in other threads, the Axis player can pursue a very defensive strategy by taking Bastogne + Verviers with no real intention of reaching the Meuse and simply hold out. The advantage of the strategy is that it goes hand in hand with not activating the British early. One could suggest it's a bit 'gamey' and a significant reason why the strategy could arguably be seen as the dominant Axis strategy*, through the exploitation of the comeback mechanic or more specifically the way it is triggered.

If it was triggered by some other means( eg. VP level rather than position relative to the Meuse or simply a fixed date) it wouldn't create an incentive to avoid the Meuse.

* - Note, I haven't played enough games to come to the conclusion that it is the dominant Axis strategy but from my experience it certainly is strong as the rewards are very good compared to its relatively low risks.

[jeffd]

That's a good thought. I'm not sure how much testing effort we want to put into refining Bulge at this point- there are definitely some improvements in the works, but something like that would have to be pretty extensively playtested, and as I mentioned earlier there are some other things I'd rather have our playtesters beating on. Definitely also something for future designers in this series to keep in mind.

[thedudeabidez]

None of the points raised here are issues for this player. The game plays quite well as is. Armored breakthrough --if you don't like armor moving faster via overrun, don't be so foolish as to leave weak units in a position where this can be exploited. Supply --infantry needs food, ammo, fuel as well. Multiple attacks -- this rule rewards attackers who concentrate their forces, and penalises those who disperse, that seems realistic enough.

[Yojimbo252]

That's a good thought. I'm not sure how much testing effort we want to put into refining Bulge at this point- there are definitely some improvements in the works, but something like that would have to be pretty extensively playtested, and as I mentioned earlier there are some other things I'd rather have our playtesters beating on. Definitely also something for future designers in this series to keep in mind.

No worries. I'm not suggesting it's a major problem that needs fixing urgently, just using it as a hypothetical when discussing generally about the virtues of comeback mechanics.

I think we need many more games (particularly high level tournament matches) to observe whether there are dominant strategies coming through and then give the metagame time to shift to see if players are able to develop counters to those dominant strategies.

[s_Mylo]

Point 1). I think an armoured unit should be able to move a max of two (with the exception of heavy woods) if it engages the enemy, and that includes over run.

Point 2). Supply, as it is modelled in the game, is well done in terms of simplicity and reasonable effects.

Point 3). I understand how the game models the difficulty in coordinating attacks between units of a size depicted in BotB, and hence the inability to attack from multiple spaces simultaneously, I feel that works well in game. ....BUT... I do think that attacking the defender from different spaces in the same day, should have a bonus for the attacker, perhaps every subsequent attack on a defender reduces his terrain absorbtion by one level. If a defender is attacked multiple times from different directions, this would reduce his defensive effectiveness....that's the reality of it.

Point 4). I like 'special rules', it's what makes a BotB game different from some other battle. A different battle should have different special rules. I play a BotB game because I want the flavour (not down to every last minute detail) of the battle. If I want to play a generic WWII battle game, I'll play something else.

Mylo

[Yojimbo252]

Point 3)....If a defender is attacked multiple times from different directions, this would reduce his defensive effectiveness....that's the reality of it.

If the attacks happen simultaneously in a coordinated assault I would agree with you.

If they occur piecemeal over the course of a day with possibly hours in between each wave where the defender is given the opportunity to reposition and re-entrench, that's different.

Bear in mind as a defenders' strength is reduced below a certain level so is his ability to exploit defensive advantages to the fullest. I believe this mechanic is enough to reward the attacker for multiple engagements that bleed the defenders' combat effectiveness.

[s_Mylo]

Toj,

I do agree that if left with enough time to prepare, defensive units don't neccessarily suffer a disadvantage if attacked from multiple directions from an ill coordinated attack. The key phrases being 'ill coordinated' and 'left with enough time'. If the attack is even somewhat coordinated and happening somewhat at the same time, it would create an advantage for the attacker.

How about this....

...every subsequent attack on the same space conducted immediately following the previous within the same day, results in a reduction in defensive unit effectiveness..aka one less level of terrain absorbtion or penalty if attacked enough times in succession. This sounds reasonable to assume and does support the tactical advantage in game to assault 'en masse'. Perhaps an idea would be to keep this advantage/disadvantage somewhat random by using the time counter. If 60min or less ticks off the clock, a successive attack on the previously attacked space would result in an offensive bonus and as long as 60min or less kept being ticked off, the offensive advantage would continue. In that way, a player may choose to instantly alter the overall 'plan' of his attack in order to take advantage of the situation....or, he may decide to break off the attack because 'too much time ticked off the clock.', which could be thought of as an 'ill coordinated' attack. Both situations seem to me to exist IRL and be modelled easily within the framework of the BotB game.

Mylo

[Yojimbo252]

How about this....
...every subsequent attack on the same space conducted immediately following the previous within the same day, results in a reduction in defensive unit effectiveness..aka one less level of terrain absorbtion or penalty if attacked enough times in succession. This sounds reasonable to assume and does support the tactical advantage in game to assault 'en masse'. Perhaps an idea would be to keep this advantage/disadvantage somewhat random by using the time counter. If 60min or less ticks off the clock, a successive attack on the previously attacked space would result in an offensive bonus and as long as 60min or less kept being ticked off, the offensive advantage would continue. In that way, a player may choose to instantly alter the overall 'plan' of his attack in order to take advantage of the situation....or, he may decide to break off the attack because 'too much time ticked off the clock.', which could be thought of as an 'ill coordinated' attack. Both situations seem to me to exist IRL and be modelled easily within the framework of the BotB game.

There's certainly nothing wrong with your suggestion but the designers have to strike a balance between Realism (which your concept may well further) and Gameplay.

When talking about Gameplay, Shenandoah have tried to keep the rules and mechanics as simple as possible to make BotB as a wargame more accessable to non-grognards for whom might be entering uncharted territory.

So whilst your suggestion may well make the effects of successive attacks feel more realistic, it certainly adds more complexity as players who haven't scoured the rulebook may be left scratching their heads wondering "why is it sometimes my defenders get full advantage of the terrain and sometimes they don't?"