Is it Possible for Germans to Win "Race to the Meuse"

[chrietitulaer]

I'm not saying the mission isn't balanced, it's a great mission. But it doesn't serve very well to explain the absolute basics of the game. It's more like a puzzle to even figure out how to get to this river.
To me at least, it doesn't clarify how I'm supposed to play this game. (just barging forward, like I do in other war games, doesn't seem to do the trick, so what else can it be?)

In other words, for a complete wargame newbie like me, it would be cool to have a more easy going scenario that explains how the units work, and how you can use them best for tactical movements.
I think it would make the game more accessible.

Still, a great game!

[sa_gibson]

Actually, Race to the Meuse teaches the basic approach to achieve the Axis auto-victory conditions from the full campaign game. I'm sure that victory condition - crontrol of a space west of the Meuse & in supply by the 19th - accounts for a significant percentage of overall Axis victories. So I don't think it is tangential at all, and I use it in BOTB games when the opportunity presents itself.

[dr_millmoss]

I downloaded this game yesterday and after playing this scenario and losing twice as Germans was asking myself this very question. As an experienced war gamer who spent many happy hours of his youth hunched over the AH Battle of the Bulge board I have to say that the game play here is so different that the experience simply isn't transferrable. It's actually a disadvantage to try to play the way you win the board game. The main issue for me thus far is (for instance) that the Germans can besiege Bastogne from multiple sides, but the only units that can attack the defenders are the three moved into that space, and then only once a day. Unless I am missing something essential, everyone else in adjacent spaces becomes spectators. They can't reinforce the attack and they can't replace weakened units in the space. So unless you get lucky with the first attackers, you lose. As in the above suggestions, the only apparent way to win is to mass all of your armored units in one space. I presume this technique carries over to other scenarios. I'd be interested in the comments of the game designers on this system, and whether they are rethinking it for future games.

[sa_gibson]

If you're trying to win Race to the Meuse by besieging Bastogne, you're not doing it right.

It's in the name. Focus on getting to the Meuse as fast as you can, using the armor exploit to move extra spaces each turn. Bastogne is only important if you need to force a draw.

[dr_millmoss]

Thanks for the comment, but it doesn't actually address my point, does it?

[sa_gibson]

Thanks for the comment, but it doesn't actually address my point, does it?

I took your point to be that BOTB is a different game than Avalon Hill's board game. Addressing that point, I'd say 'Yes, it's a different game.' It's an operational-level war game which abstracts time into turns & impulses and imposes limits on how many impulses each unit can use each turn. It abstracts the battlefield terrain into spaces & imposes limits on the number of units in each space. So it's a package of compromises, but it is kinda fun. It is possible to play it well, and good players find it competitive fun as long as they play matched pairs of games switching sides for balance.

[dr_millmoss]

Thanks for the comment, but it doesn't actually address my point, does it?

I took your point to be that BOTB is a different game than Avalon Hill's board game. Addressing that point, I'd say 'Yes, it's a different game.' It's an operational-level war game which abstracts time into turns & impulses and imposes limits on how many impulses each unit can use each turn. It abstracts the battlefield terrain into spaces & imposes limits on the number of units in each space. So it's a package of compromises, but it is kinda fun. It is possible to play it well, and good players find it competitive fun as long as they play matched pairs of games switching sides for balance.

Partially. All reality-based games are abstractions and have limitations. This is inherent, so that isn't the issue I am raising. The goal in the design of any gaming system should be to make those abstractions and limitations result in a reasonable interpretation of reality. I was asking about the gaming system's assumptions, which to me make illogical assumptions, and consequently produce situations that don't model reality. There's no reason that I can see for jettisoning reality modeling in order to make a game fun to play. In fact the war games I enjoyed most growing up are the ones that produced situations close to the historical battles on which they were based. The games that were received the least well ("D-Day" comes to mind) were the ones that compromised the history too much. They also turned out to be less fun to play as a result.

[s_Whiterook]

I've only had about 10 plays with the game but, best I've been able to do is a draw. It's almost maddening. Last game had the 12th SS and 1st SS Pz and Pz Lehr against ONE American unit and they lost. I almost passed out

[sa_gibson]

I've only had about 10 plays with the game but, best I've been able to do is a draw. It's almost maddening. Last game had the 12th SS and 1st SS Pz and Pz Lehr against ONE American unit and they lost. I almost passed out

Where did this combat take place?

[sa_gibson]

Thanks for the comment, but it doesn't actually address my point, does it?

I took your point to be that BOTB is a different game than Avalon Hill's board game. Addressing that point, I'd say 'Yes, it's a different game.' It's an operational-level war game which abstracts time into turns & impulses and imposes limits on how many impulses each unit can use each turn. It abstracts the battlefield terrain into spaces & imposes limits on the number of units in each space. So it's a package of compromises, but it is kinda fun. It is possible to play it well, and good players find it competitive fun as long as they play matched pairs of games switching sides for balance.

Partially. All reality-based games are abstractions and have limitations. This is inherent, so that isn't the issue I am raising. The goal in the design of any gaming system should be to make those abstractions and limitations result in a reasonable interpretation of reality. I was asking about the gaming system's assumptions, which to me make illogical assumptions, and consequently produce situations that don't model reality. There's no reason that I can see for jettisoning reality modeling in order to make a game fun to play. In fact the war games I enjoyed most growing up are the ones that produced situations close to the historical battles on which they were based. The games that were received the least well ("D-Day" comes to mind) were the ones that compromised the history too much. They also turned out to be less fun to play as a result.

Is your complaint about stacking limitations? Units adjacent to Bastogne are ~10 km from the center of town, according to the game scale. They really can't impact the battle directly without entering the space, which is subject to stacking limitations.

[Weids]

I downloaded this game yesterday and after playing this scenario and losing twice as Germans was asking myself this very question. As an experienced war gamer who spent many happy hours of his youth hunched over the AH Battle of the Bulge board I have to say that the game play here is so different that the experience simply isn't transferrable. It's actually a disadvantage to try to play the way you win the board game. The main issue for me thus far is (for instance) that the Germans can besiege Bastogne from multiple sides, but the only units that can attack the defenders are the three moved into that space, and then only once a day. Unless I am missing something essential, everyone else in adjacent spaces becomes spectators. They can't reinforce the attack and they can't replace weakened units in the space. So unless you get lucky with the first attackers, you lose. As in the above suggestions, the only apparent way to win is to mass all of your armored units in one space. I presume this technique carries over to other scenarios. I'd be interested in the comments of the game designers on this system, and whether they are rethinking it for future games.

Soctt pointed out one key rule, but you missed some details as well. You will be able to realize as you read more rules. Although don't expect it to be as realistic as the AH series, which is very realisitically accurate.

Weidong

[dr_millmoss]

Is your complaint about stacking limitations? Units adjacent to Bastogne are ~10 km from the center of town, according to the game scale. They really can't impact the battle directly without entering the space, which is subject to stacking limitations.

Not really, I'd expect stacking limitations. What seems odd to me is that the units in the space can't be practicality replaced, so it seems to be impossible to reinforce any offensive or defensive position, no matter how many other stronger units you have nearby.

[dr_millmoss]

I downloaded this game yesterday and after playing this scenario and losing twice as Germans was asking myself this very question. As an experienced war gamer who spent many happy hours of his youth hunched over the AH Battle of the Bulge board I have to say that the game play here is so different that the experience simply isn't transferrable. It's actually a disadvantage to try to play the way you win the board game. The main issue for me thus far is (for instance) that the Germans can besiege Bastogne from multiple sides, but the only units that can attack the defenders are the three moved into that space, and then only once a day. Unless I am missing something essential, everyone else in adjacent spaces becomes spectators. They can't reinforce the attack and they can't replace weakened units in the space. So unless you get lucky with the first attackers, you lose. As in the above suggestions, the only apparent way to win is to mass all of your armored units in one space. I presume this technique carries over to other scenarios. I'd be interested in the comments of the game designers on this system, and whether they are rethinking it for future games.

Soctt pointed out one key rule, but you missed some details as well. You will be able to realize as you read more rules. Although don't expect it to be as realistic as the AH series, which is very realisitically accurate.

Weidong

Help me out here. Such as? Honestly I haven't spent a lot of additional time with this game, since the first two times were quite disappointing.

[sa_gibson]

Is your complaint about stacking limitations? Units adjacent to Bastogne are ~10 km from the center of town, according to the game scale. They really can't impact the battle directly without entering the space, which is subject to stacking limitations.

Not really, I'd expect stacking limitations. What seems odd to me is that the units in the space can't be practicality replaced, so it seems to be impossible to reinforce any offensive or defensive position, no matter how many other stronger units you have nearby.

In fact, you can withdraw the units in contact, and move other units in. You just need free space to do it without violating stacking limits.

I'm not sure how else you would reinforce given stacking limitations. Also, keep in mind that if you have Bastogne (or any space except a supply source) surrounded, you've cut them off from supply; which means they're immobile, at the very least, and can't resist the withdraw / reinforce process by fleeing or attacking.

[ShenGameJunkie]

Just gotta note appreciation for this strategy -

fighting only when the odds are overwhelmingly in your favor

Amen

[dr_millmoss]

Is your complaint about stacking limitations? Units adjacent to Bastogne are ~10 km from the center of town, according to the game scale. They really can't impact the battle directly without entering the space, which is subject to stacking limitations.

Not really, I'd expect stacking limitations. What seems odd to me is that the units in the space can't be practicality replaced, so it seems to be impossible to reinforce any offensive or defensive position, no matter how many other stronger units you have nearby.

In fact, you can withdraw the units in contact, and move other units in. You just need free space to do it without violating stacking limits.

I'm not sure how else you would reinforce given stacking limitations. Also, keep in mind that if you have Bastogne (or any space except a supply source) surrounded, you've cut them off from supply; which means they're immobile, at the very least, and can't resist the withdraw / reinforce process by fleeing or attacking.

Possibly I am missing something, but when I move one unit in a stack, the others in that space have to either move or give up their turn for the day.

I had Bastogne surrounded, IIRC, and a 6:1 advantage over the defenders. Two attacks later I had inflicted zero points of damage and took five or six myself. Maybe that was just unlucky but if I'd been able, I would have withdrawn one of the weakened units after the first attack and replaced it with a stronger unit.

[sa_gibson]

Not really, I'd expect stacking limitations. What seems odd to me is that the units in the space can't be practicality replaced, so it seems to be impossible to reinforce any offensive or defensive position, no matter how many other stronger units you have nearby.

In fact, you can withdraw the units in contact, and move other units in. You just need free space to do it without violating stacking limits.

I'm not sure how else you would reinforce given stacking limitations. Also, keep in mind that if you have Bastogne (or any space except a supply source) surrounded, you've cut them off from supply; which means they're immobile, at the very least, and can't resist the withdraw / reinforce process by fleeing or attacking.

Possibly I am missing something, but when I move one unit in a stack, the others in that space have to either move or give up their turn for the day.

I had Bastogne surrounded, IIRC, and a 6:1 advantage over the defenders. Two attacks later I had inflicted zero points of damage and took five or six myself. Maybe that was just unlucky but if I'd been able, I would have withdrawn one of the weakened units after the first attack and replaced it with a stronger unit.

Race to the Meuse lasts three game days. Even with the full cooperation if the Allied player, I don't think you can encircle Bastogne on the 16th or the 17th, so I assume you completed encirclement sometime on the last game day - so encirclement itself would have no time to take effect within the confines if the scenario.

Attacking Bastogne itself can't be done before the 17th. If you commit yourself to it, and have some luck, you'll be able to assemble a 15-pt Panzer stack to attack Bastogne on the 17th. Note that if you do this, you lack the forces to encircle Bastogne, so presumably you attacked with something less than that - perhaps 1 Pz @ 5 and 2 inf units @ ~7, for 12 points?

If the Allied player committed himself to defense of Bastogne, he'd have 6 points of armor in Bastogne, though 2 or 3 are more likely as some of your initial moves would have blocked his ability to shift CC units in. If he had 2, you'd need 12 for your described advantage, so that makes sense.

Your Pz unit will take 5 shots with a base chance to hit of 40%. I'll assume it was elite armor, but the 10% modifier will be offset by the defensive armor modifier. You can expect your Pz attack to generate 2 hits on average.

Your inf has a 30% chance of hitting, but the defender has armor so that chance is reduced to 20%. With 7 shots you can expect to generate 1.4 hits on average.

Bastogne will absorb as many hits as the defender's strength up to 4 (2 because forest, 2 because city). Thus if you scored 3 hits in the above scenario, Bastogne would absorb all of them, up to the strength total of the defender - in this case 2 - so the defending CC unit would take only 1 hit. If you were unlucky, it would take no hits.

Assuming this combat takes place on the earliest day possible, the 17th, your next chance to attack is on the 18th. You begin the 18th by completing the encirclement. Assume your Bastogne force suffered 2 hits in the prior attack, so you have 4 strength of armor and 6 strength of infantry. Bastogne defenders have 1 or 2 strength. You can't reinforce your attack from outside because of stacking limitations; but some of your units outside Bastogne have already moved to complete the encirclement, so you can't move them again. If that weren't the case, you could move all the units in Bastogne out - dispersing them to adjacent spaces within stacking limits - and move another stack into Bastogne to attack. But this seems unlikely on the 18th because it presupposes another stack within attacking range of Bastogne which has not been activated yet this turn. You could do it on the next turn, but there is no next turn in Race to the Meuse. It ends at EOD on the 18th.

I'm not surprised that it might take several turns to defeat even a small force in Bastogne, but the rest of your scenario seems impossible to me. You can't encircle B before the 18th. You can't make more than 2 days of determined attacks against B before the game ends. And to do either, you have to completely ignore the objective of the game. Your panzers aren't supposed to be in Bastogne, they're supposed to be in Huy, or Ouffet. It's Race to the Meuse.

[s_Whiterook]

All I can say is, this game is absolutely maddening...ti the point that thus-far, I hate it. To have this first scenario so bloody difficult is almost ridiculous. I understand there is a method to maybe make it to the Meuse, but I'd rather have a longer game with a better chance at target than three turns where I keep getting pounded to dust. I mean, three panzer units onboard can't take one?

Yeah, I also realize there are 'conditions' where roads and armored strength come into play...but this is maddening as an intro to the game, and I would suspect more players than not say 'F-it!' I'm at that stage.

[sa_gibson]

Whiterook, do you want to play a few & see if we can sort it out? Either Meuse or the full game? I'm scottagibson on GC.

[s_wwalker98]

Finally beat this scenario after many many tries. Here is what I was missing:

Maintain a threat on the southern half of the board. The far northern path is your ultimate goal, but the AI (Monty at least) will get spooked and send armor towards the south, clearing your path. On each day, I waited to make my northern attacks until late in the day to give time for the Allies to lose their nerve.

Hope this helps some other frustrated soul out there.