Ardennes ‘44

February 13th, 2006

On Saturday I had one of the most intense gaming experiences of my life.

A month or two ago I discovered a workmate has a few wargames. I told Rob I was interested, so he came over and we tried Ardennes ‘44. It is probably the highest regarded Battle of the Bulge game at the moment. It is Gary Christiansen’s favourite wargame and Chris Farrell rates it 9/10 and gave it a glowing review.

The historical situation is certainly gripping. I did not cover WWII at school at all, and only recently started reading up on it, so it is all very new. For those as ignorant as me, the Battle of the Bulge was Hitler’s final desperate counter attack against the Allies, after D-Day, in the hope that a humiliating defeat would encourage them to sue for peace, so Germany could concentrate itself against the red tide approaching from the east. The attack took place during early winter through the forests of the Ardennes, in Belgium. It nearly worked and was the only time the Americans really looked like they could suffer a serious defeat. Due to this drama, this is probably the most wargamed battle in WWII, more even than D-Day. I have to say that I was enthralled. Fantasy and ancient themes just do not move me any more. They seem tired compared to the real life dramas of history. I am definitely a eurogamer and a wargamer now.

Ardennes ‘44 is simply a hex-and-counter wargame, with zones of control and combat result tables, but a few things mark it out and there is lots to admire:

  • large counters and a good-looking map.
  • a fairly non-lethal CRT that makes it very tough for the Germans to pin the Americans down, despite their massive fire-power superiority.
  • hex-wide ZOC bonds or barriers between allied units, that make encirclement particularly powerful.
  • massive traffic problems for the Germans, both due to traffic counters and road blocks that the Americans can lay, but also just due to the trouble armour have getting through woods. These can be alleviated by capturing St Vith, which is very difficult for the Germans.
  • a huge disparity between the forces. As the Germans, I spent literally eight or nine times as long on my moves as my opponent.
  • artillery is almost immobile, but you can move a certain number every turn with prime mover pieces.
  • night turns, where you can forgo movement on your regular turn for three units, who instead get to move later but twice in quick succession, with no interference from the opposition.
  • some nice chrome from special units, like the von der Heydte paratroopers or Dr Sola and Panzer Brigade 150 who, against the Geneva Convention, dressed and equipped themselves as Americans in order to gain surprise and sow disorder and confusion.
  • the victory conditions of the shorter (!) six turn game remind me almost of a eurogame, as you simply have to capture and hold ten victory point locations, normally villages or small towns, by the end of the game.
  • bridges are very easy to blow and rivers are impassable to armour, but bridges cannot be blown before turn 3, which makes a good start for the Americans absolutely imperative.
  • the German forces are split into three sectors by rather artificial Army Boundary Lines: red in the north (6th Panzer Army), grey in the centre (5th Panzer Army) and blue in the south (7th Army). These lines make an already choked up map almost impossible to navigate in some places, with the divider between 6th and 5th Panzer particularly annoying.
  • small stacks of counters, making this fairly non-fiddly.
  • really tough supply problems for the Germans towards the end of the game. Making a supplied exit from the Western map edge looks practically impossible.

With all these interesting positives, come a couple of major negatives.

This is a seriously complicated game. Although generally clearly written and error free, they are 23 dense pages long, not including tables, and I found them hard going. A few times I got very frustrated by what I saw as unnecessary complexity, for instance the movement and stacking rules are needlessly elaborate. Luckily Rob had a good grip on the rules and I had made some effort beforehand, so there was surprisingly little looking-up once things got going.

Generally I enjoyed Ardennes ‘44, but I was stunned by the duration. On Friday, I instant messaged Joe Steadman, and asked how long I could expect it to take and he said four to six hours. The Ardennes ‘44 page at the Geek says 360 minutes. Rob arrived at 10.30pm and we had about 45 minutes for lunch. We finished at 9.30pm – 10 hours 15 minutes and Rob did not even take his last move. After six and a half hours I had had enough. I was enjoying the game itself, but felt exhausted. By the end, it felt more like a test of stamina than a game. I could have made much better use of strategic movement, night turns and prime movers, but by the end I did not care. Six hours is my absolute personal limit.

The bottom line is that this was a love/hate experience for me. I cannot put a numbered rating on the game as, in its class, it is obviously superb, but I never want to endure that marathon again.

Update
Rob pointed out that you might be interested in a bit of an After Action Report of how I actually got on as the Germans. In his words:

You achieved a roughly historical sitution with the 6th, managed an early capture of St. Vith vs. history on the 18th I think (a day late on the historical plan), and a fantastic breakout with the 5th on the 17th but which was canelised on the 18th by the arrival of the airbourne who had to adopt holding positions around the Lehr spearhead in Bastogne and had to try and join hands with the defenders near Stavelot.

It is also worth pointing out that 6th Panzer really got thumped in the north. At the end, I barely got 10 victory points, but we ran out of time and Rob did not take his final turn. I am sure he would have clawed back at least one or two of the victory points giving him the win. On the basis of this one playing, Ardennes ‘44 is very finely tuned and balanced.

7 Responses to “Ardennes ‘44”

  1. cfarrell Says:

    Interesting to read your comments on the game. I too can’t play 10 hours of game at a stretch, as much as I might like a big game like Eurofront or Ardennes ‘44. 6 is about right I think, and is the cutoff for a game to be “playable” for me personally. Anyway. Which scenario did you play? If you had asked me, I woud have said 4-6 hours to play the shorter, 6-turn scenario, which I have quite enjoyed and which is not unreasonable. The entire battle is a monster though and should probably be done in 2-3 sittings.

    Still, a great game, and as hex-n-counter games go, one of my favorites, if not my favorite. It plays remarkably well given the raw complexity, and Mark Simonitch’s games are really tight in comparison to the typical slipshod GMT production these days.

  2. Iain Says:

    We played the 6-turn scenario. The time taken includes setup, so I suppose game play itself took 9 hours or so, but 4 hours seems an amazingly fast time to finish. Next time we could bring it down to maybe seven hours, but that’s still ambitious. Part of the problem is obviously that we are inexperienced wargamers, but we are not that green.

    You are right that it is a tight game. We had only one unresolved rule question, which is impressive considering its depth.

  3. JoeSteadman Says:

    What in the world are you talking about? While we agree that A44 is a great game you always have to throw in some type of downer… “… are really tight in comparison to the typical slipshod GMT production these days.” You can be such a troll. I think that GMT is doing great and that 95% of what they put out of great. You should define “slipshod” and be more thankful for what is available to us wargamers today.

  4. JoeSteadman Says:

    Troll might of been a bit harsh…. I take it back…. Love ya Chris!

  5. cfarrell Says:

    Hey Joe, I love GMT too, but if you haven’t noticed their recent quality control problems, your eyes aren’t open. I just paid $50 for Twilight Struggle, which has a screwed up reference card, messed up Defcon track, frequently inadequtely clear card wordings, major eratta to the setup, and a fascinating new country called “Chili”. All this for a game with under 8 pages of rules.

    The absence of any of these kinds of problems from Mark’s much more complicated games tells you something.

  6. Joe Steadman Says:

    I also have TS and I love the game. Ok, QaQc might be a bit off at GMT at times but to me that is just the nature of the beast. I am not going to bad mouth the entire company for some production problems. We should encourage them to raise the bar through contructive helps rather then rude jabs. So, Chris…. when we gonna get together and play a few games?

  7. rrees Says:

    I don’t blame GMT for a lot of the recent printing errors. Some of the designers and developers have been slack in their proof-reading and in the case of Twilight Struggle and Burning Blue there have been complaints that what comes back from the printers is different from what is on the proof copy. A couple of jobs have been scrapped already but then this leads to a delay in getting the games out.

    The market is probably too small to realistically suggest a change of printers.

Leave a Reply

OpenID

Anonymous