Question about the games value to myself

[sullafelix]

No this is not a thread about the actual games value. I have both COTA and HTTR and think they are some of the best wargames ever released.

My problem is that I really don't like gaming the Battle of the Bulge. I think it was a pie in the sky idea that had no chance for success.

So my question is how many scenarios of different battles will be released for it? I've checked HTTR and COTA and I don't see many released at all.

I want to buy this one, but I also don't want it to just sit on my harddrive. Any thoughts on this would be appreciated.

[gabeeg]

Sulla05, I believe Panther is planning a module based on HTTR scenarios ported over to the new engine. There are some post on this forum if you do a search...not sure if I am 100% accurate. If you go to Games Depot you can download some very good scenarios in Epsom and Epsom Phase 4 ( http://ww.wargamer.com/gamesdepot/ ). There are also a couple user scenarios in the works if you look in the mods and scenarios sub-forum.

[Huib]

ORIGINAL: sulla05

No this is not a thread about the actual games value. I have both COTA and HTTR and think they are some of the best wargames ever released.

My problem is that I really don't like gaming the Battle of the Bulge. I think it was a pie in the sky idea that had no chance for success.

So my question is how many scenarios of different battles will be released for it? I've checked HTTR and COTA and I don't see many released at all.

I want to buy this one, but I also don't want it to just sit on my harddrive. Any thoughts on this would be appreciated.

At the moment I think I am going to make a substantial number of scenarios, However each and every one takes a lot of time and I will be dealing with battles in NW Europe in late 1944 to may 45 which may not be your main area of interest. There is more in the works by others. The thing is that BftB is more suited for making custom scenarios than the previous titles since you also have an ESTAB editor, allowing designers to (in theory) make anything, for any front they want. I also have COTA, but knew I would be waiting for BftB because of the editors. I'm very impressed with the possibilities of the editors and how they are designed.

Huib

[sullafelix]

Thanks guys. I believe I'm off the fence now.

Yes I did see the two Epsoms and also the planned scenarios. I just wanted other peoples input as to whether they thought the scenarios would actually come to fruition. In essence I needed a gentle push. I don't have any problem with other 1944 or other arenas besides Europe as far as scenarios go. I just can't wargame the Bulge anymore. it might be a little like " Stairway to Heaven " I liked the song originally but someone my age has probably heard it two million times.

[FredSanford3]

This is actually something that IMO touches on the way BftB presents the Bulge campaign. This game has a couple dozen independent scenarios that each present portions of the oveall battle with division/corps-sized OOBs, not the entire opposing army groups. You win or lose a scenario on its own- there is no larger campaign game mode. So each scenario is balanced to attempt to allow either player to win based upon the on-map objectives specific to that scenario. Using this structure, Panther took a lot of flak on the board for not having a campaign mode. In this case, maybe that's not so bad, since as you say (and I agree, and suspect most would agree) the German offensive was a 'pie in the sky' effort that had almost no chance of actually suceeding. That being so, why bother with a one-sided campaign?

The reasons Arjuna (Dave) didn't put in a campaign mode were basically that (a) a normal PC couldn't handle the quantity of units involved in the overall battle all at once, and (b) the engine itself doesn't model longer-term operational issues like replacements, repair, strategic movement and so forth. While they could perhaps 'fake it' to abstract these things (I'm thinking of a Close Combat-style 'campaign'), I believe their basic design philosophy is 'if you're going to do it, do it right'. While they may do a campaign-style game in the future, I think they want to focus on developing a solid operational model that can attack/defend/move etc. effectively as a primary goal.

[Haiku]

I must say that for having playing both CotA and BftB, I really prefer the scenario in the former iteration. Granted the engine is much more enjoyable now, with many improvements, I still prefer the old scenario, as they seems more "dynamic" with less "fixed" frontlines to me. I guess the context (winter war with exhausted troops) is the main reason for the BftB slow pace flavor, but since I'm a gamer almost exclusively, without much military or WWII background, I find myself enjoying more the older Conquest of the Aegean scenario that involve more maneuver and more "capable" troops (less fatigue overall) .

So I will also be glad to see them converted to the BftB engine.