Campaign Advice Needed

[Extra Crispy]

Advice needed....

I am considering doing a Battle of the Bulge campaign, probably by adapting a boardgame. But looking at it, it seems likely each turn will generate more than one battle.

My thought is to pick the most interesting battle each turn and play that on the table top, leaving all the others to be resolved via the boardgame.

If we have enough players and tables I'd run two games, but I'm not sure I have enough minis for that!

Thoughts?

[BurtWolf]

May not be what you are looking for, but my two cents...

I used to play a computer campaign game - Matrix games (Talonsoft) "John Tiller's Campaign Series" - and I enjoyed the mechanics of knowing that:

a) the units you are using now will be used in the next campaign scenario so avoid the Charge of the Light Brigade tactics, and
b) you received minimal replacement points at the end of each battle to mitigate some, not all or most, of your losses.

Since it is the Bulge, do you factor in supplies and weather over the campaign and/or battles?

I like your suggested way of breaking up the game, sounds interesting and you better post an AAR here!!!

[PolishGI]

Great idea and always tough to replicate. Taking on the entire campaign in any fashion will stall from what we have learned.

I created an 8' x 4' map in paint for printing and cut it into two pieces (northern and southern) for the Kursk Campaign. I must have researched everything under the sun along with reading the 10-15 books I have on it looking for units and the master almighty OOB. Then researching the each air force’s OOB to include.

What I found out is that I have 32 sq ft of map, some self-made 1,000+ counters (both sides; printed on photo paper, attached to styrene and sealed with dullcote) and infinite number of excel spreadsheets covering each and every unit. Each counter was supported by an EXCEL spreadsheet so you have a 1 to 1 relationship when moving counters on the map and when they encounter an enemy unit to fight. The intent was to have the northern or southern map up on a table with all the counters in place. Your standard ‘hex’ grid was applied to the map and each hex contained small details that include towns/villages/railroads, fields etc. So this added to the realism of a specific area at Kursk. So you knew how to set up the tabletop IF a battle were to take place in that hex. Consistency was a consideration as well for recreating specific areas or follow up battles later in the campaign.

Each turn, the counters are moved like a strategic wargame like Burt is talking about with the Matrix games. For each side’s Air Force units, you placed which aircraft units you wanted to participate in a particular battle (hex) as air support. So if you are sending in a flight of Ju-87s or Hs-129s in, you need to send in Me109s or Fw190s for ‘support’. This goes for the Soviet player as well. Depending who has air superiority for that hex, then those air assets can join the ground war and shoot up or bomb the enemy’s ground forces.

Once the ‘counter’s collide on the strategic map, then you have to grab those unit’s spreadsheets and then build the units in miniatures for the ground warfare and for the air fighting if applicable. Setup of the tabletop was based on the large strategic map’s terrain and fight it out. Whoever wins that battle retains control of the hex. And the losing unit counters need to move back in retreat or are removed as eliminated (no longer combat effective).

Then a log is kept of which units fought in each round. After all fighting is completed, then you have an ‘admin’ phase where you can maintenance each unit in battle, replace ammo, consolidate units etc. At the end of a ‘day’, then you had maintenance each unit in combat but also add a component of what was ‘repaired’ for the following day’s movement and battle. Some units may not be ready to go and have to be left back for further repair. As long as a lead unit on the strategic map can trace a secure line back to their side, the unit was always in “supplyâ€￾ with fuel and ammo. But once cut off, then that unit is on their own and needs to be rescued.

It is a fun system but given the size of the Bulge or Kursk, its magnitude is immense and time consuming. This worked for us with the Kursk campaign so I imagine it will cover the December 1944 offensive as well. Just a lot of time and work put in to set things up. I cant tell you the number of hours I put in over weeks, months and possibly years. It is/was a labor of love.

So another avenue we have considered is selecting a single unit in the offensive and follow them through the campaign. Takes some research, but you can select a unit or several battalions and research their daily activities/encounters and create scenarios/battles around them. This allows you a more manageable process while focusing on a single spoke in the wheel instead of taking on the entire ball of wax.

One that comes to mind and often is Peiper’s Kampfgruppe. Easy to research but beaten to death and overplayed, but easier to put together as a stepping stone into the Bulge. There are other units to consider down this path that would require research. I think we have an 8-10 scenario campaign on him as well that we played. Gets hairy in the end when fuel and ammo become a consideration. You start to think… ok, I can hit that unit… but should I? are they worthy of a 75mm or 88mm round? Haha

I hope this helps,

Jeff

[Sudwind]

Consider bathtubbing your orders of battle to make the game manageable and also focus on either the northern shoulder and Peiper or the central sector and Bastogne. I suppose the old Avalon Hill Battle of the Bulge game would be a good choice as the larger campaign map. Some of the German units are rated too highly in that game though....but it is simple, quicker to play and cheap to acquire. Each counter is roughly a brigade...perhaps scale that down to each unit being a reinforced battalion? Using the Command Decision rules, you could have some very satisfying games. Maybe allow each player to choose secretly a boardgame battle per turn to play on the table with minis? On occasion, both players will pick the same battle to play and cut down on games u play.

I think there is an SPI folio game for Bastogne that would also work for a smaller campaign.

[Extra Crispy]

This is a bit of a back burner project but here is my progress so far.

I have found a suitable boardgame to start with. It is "The Bulge" from Compass Games:

https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/20133/fab-bulge

It uses area movement. Units are mostly divisions, and a few brigades, supported by "battlefield assets" which represent important smaller units like artillery and engineers.

It uses area movement for the strategic map which makes it easy to mount on a wall using a magnetic bulletin board. Out of harms way from bumping between games.

I'm looking at the new rules "Rommel" for resolving battles. Each base = 1 company. It uses step losses which should make it easy to translate back and forth. Using a 6x8 table, I can represent most of the map areas directly on to the table top.

The game has OOB, supply, and random event rules. Al I need to do then is to convert each unit to it's "Rommel" equivalent, bathtubbing naturally.

I'll probably end up with companies standing in for battalions. Maybe regiments. I need to fiddle with the game, look at stacking etc. to see what size engagements it's likely to lead to.

I'll post further updates as I get them.....

[BattlerBritain]

If you're using Company sized units another really good set of rules is 'Great Battles of World War 2'.

Also have you thought of using a Vassal module for the board game? Vassal means you can 'play' the boardgame on a computer and use Vassal to store the pieces locations.

Vassal also allows you to see the pieces as either player would, including restricted piece views to resemble some sort of fog-of-war, or as umpire to see everything.

Vassal also has play-by-email where you can email your moves to an opponent, should you wish.

Just an idea. eg http://www.vassalengine.org/wiki/Module:FAB:_The_Bulge

B