mostly unbiased review

[jimscannell]

New poster de-lurking...

I played CotA a couple of years ago and I liked the general model of command - makes for a different kind of wargame. I'm not a CotA die-hard, and I had a couple of issues with AI behavior - units would sometimes bunch up in ways that would make them easy targets for artillery, and the opfor AI was better at defending than at carrying out its own assault.

When I heard about Battles from the Bulge, I was intrigued, in part because I am actually a big fan of the history here, and I've also played some cardboard wargames based on the Bulge (Panzer Grenadier).

Like many, I was initially deterred by the high price for BftB. Anyone who has purchased a cardboard wargaming product in the last two years knows that cardboard isn't cheap, either, and this community should expect to pay a premium price to support a niche hobby audience. Well, after about ten days of watching these boards and not hearing anything substantial that would turn me away from BftB, I ponied up and installed a copy.

In short, my review is pretty positive. But, let me add some depth to that...

The tutorial movies are very well done, and are a great introduction to the system. Kudos to Panther Games for that.

After watching the movies, I played through the tutorial battle. With a good start from the movies, I was able to achieve a decisive victory. I like that the movies only really cover the first half of the battle, so the tutorial gives you a good chance to stretch your wings.

I have since moved on to some of the simpler scenarios as the Germans. Many folks on these boards have gone from the tutorial to "Hofen Ho-Down" because of the relatively low complexity. The Germans in this battle have a frustrating lack of tanks, but once they start to re-supply their artillery they have a reasonable chance of success as the attackers. On my second try I made better use of the terrain and attack timing, and won a marginal victory. Still a good scenario overall.

My next foray was "Battle of the Roadblocks". I decided early on to avoid the main objective in the SW corner, the town of Bastogne. I made plans instead to get the 60 point objective for the exit in the NW corner. In the end I was able to do an OK job of carrying out that plan, though at one point I had about 10 units surrounding a single American unit in a forest, blocking the main highway. Now, pretty much everyone was fatigued out, but the length of time that one unit held on without surrendering really hurt my overall tempo. In the end I got 80 points worth of objectives, but the Allies scored 100. If I had gotten a couple of units close enough to Bastogne to contest it, then the allies would have lost 25 completion points, so it seems that a marginal victory is well within reach. The allies get a big contingent of reserves late in the scenario - given how tight the map is around Bastogne, I don't see how the Germans would score a major victory here, but like I said, the minor victory is well within reach. Fun scenario.

I just finished (most of) the "Manhay Crossroads" scenario. Lots of fun here. As the Germans, you can wipe out some inferior Allied units pretty quickly. In fact, in the the first twelve hours I was able to run my big tank battalion right up into one of the two main towns (the one just left of Manhay). Then, the Allies got their reinforcements and the counter-attack began. Let me say that I am VERY impressed with the way that the opposing AI managed the scenario. The first couple of assaults on my positions weren't very well co-ordinated, but by the end of the scenario the computer, playing as the Allies, had done a great job of moving units around the map to threaten and eventually take the major objectives. The fighting was taking place on several fronts, leaving me a little overwhelmed. Unfortunately, I had a crash-to-desktop right before the battle was supposed to end, though I am pretty sure I had suffered at least a marginal defeat as the Germans my first time through.

If you have played CotA, then the AI in BftB is definitely an upgrade, and shows where the developer put in the time over the last few years. I like how my sub-commanders develop their own attack plans, then re-assess and make renewed attempts if the initial assault meets with heavy resistance. I don't feel the need to constantly re-issue attack orders to my officers.

A note about artillery - micro-managing artillery still feels like an important part of the game. Artillery units which are "on call" will send out a fair bit of firepower on their own, but they don't do a great job of directing it where it is needed most. Personally, I also feel like the way that the game models artillery isn't deadly enough. If I have a bunch of units stacked in a tight cluster (perhaps organizing to begin an assault), and they take a 10 minute bombardment from American artillery, it should kill more than 5 guys. Yes, I get that troops have the common sense to duck into foxholes, hit the ground, etc. The artillery just feels a little ineffective sometimes, although it's really important to use artillery for suppression in conjunction with assaults on dug-in defenders.

My biggest challenge right now as the Germans is balancing my own unit fatigue. In the "Manhay Crossroads" scenario, I had 3 companies of Panther tanks holed up in a town and defending. The Americans sent in probe after probe. My guys weren't able to rest, and began to break ranks as they lost effectiveness. Eventually they were done in by units they could have handled easily had they been fresh. The harsh winter conditions of the real Bulge battles probably made it hard for any soldier to grab a nap in the midst of battle. It feels like that is a big part of this game.

So, to sum up... I have a couple of niggles about AI unit behavior. I wish there was a command so I could tell my artillery to focus on sighted targets within a particular sector of the battlefield. I wish artillery killed a few more people in the game. I did suffer at least one annoying (and seemingly random) crash to desktop.

On the other hand, the scenarios seems fun and reasonably well balanced so far, and the single player AI does a pretty good job of making for memorable and fun battles. I love the maps, and I love the attention to historical details here.

Is it worth $80? Compared to a shiny new graphics-fest on the PS3, probably not. Compared to a $100 wargame with cardboard counters and paper maps, this in infinitely better, because it gives you a very plausible battle engine, and lets you play through a three day battle in a single afternoon against a reasonably competent AI. Plus, you don't have to sort out your cardboard counters afterward. And you don't have to worry about your cat jumping onto the table, etc.

Good job Panther Games - I am proud to own a copy of BftB, and I hope that you guys are able to continue the series.

[goodwoodrw]

Great comment, the terrain and weather are extremely important issues in this game, which compounds unit fatigue. Gone are the good old days of yesteryears war game where u committed a unit until the job was done. This war game  is about unit management, managing supply and most importantly managing unit fatigue. The use of reserves is paramount and rotating unit in and out of the front line is critical in longer battles.

[Fred98]

What level of fatigue do you use as a measure?
 
-
 

[Arimus]

I think your wrong about the artillery. Try playing "Final Jump" as the Americans. Issue a defend in place to the on-map boss with min ammo, then hit 8 twice to find the arty units. Place each arty unit to defend with max ammo.
You can win with very little manuever. Just call most of the artillery missions yourself and manuever the reinforcements.

Personally, I don't think a routed infantry platoon can coordinate 16 artillery batteries. Fire control is too automatic. 

[goodwoodrw]

ORIGINAL: Joe 98

What level of fatigue do you use as a measure?

-

Crikey don't ask me! I must be the worst Cmdr for rotating troops around. I haven't got it right yet, my units are always coming to a stand still, because they exhausted. [:D]

[Adam Parker]

ORIGINAL: jimscannell

A note about artillery - micro-managing artillery still feels like an important part of the game.

At face value without yet <sigh> having the time to pull the rulebook apart, I agree with this observation and it does seem to be out of whack with the general premise of the game, in that the AI subordinates should coordinate the fighting for you.

Yes a "fire on map coordiante until ordered otherwise" command would make sense for human controlled arty assets.

[James Sterrett]

ORIGINAL: Adam Parker
Yes a "fire on map coordiante until ordered otherwise" command would make sense for human controlled arty assets.

Increase the duration of the barrage task -- left-click on the minutes, hours, or days button of the End At time. A 3-day barrage is pretty close to "Until I Say Otherwise".

[Adam Parker]

ORIGINAL: James Sterrett
Increase the duration of the barrage task -- left-click on the minutes, hours, or days button of the End At time. A 3-day barrage is pretty close to "Until I Say Otherwise".

Thanks James. That could have endless tactical possibilities too! Will try that out soonest [:)]

Problem solved.

[James Sterrett]

Keep in mind that the task:

1) Won't cancel for such minor matters as running out of shells... the arty will stop firing when it runs out, then resume when ammo is delivered. (This is based on experience but I may have misunderstood what I was seeing.)

2) Won't track an enemy unit for you.