Bulge '44 scenarios feedback

[FM WarB]

I am interested in feedback from anyone who has played either of Prinz von Egan's Bulge '44 scenarios, or the latest Bulge scenario posted on Glenn Saunder's Unofficial Panzer Campaigns site. I'm thinking of taking another crack at scenario design...(co authored the Egan games)
Gotta use my Bulge library.

[Rev Rico]

I've played Prinz von Egan's DARK WINTER scn twice. Both times the US quit early because the Germans had beat them up bad. I liked the longer nights and some of the OOB changes; a few, however, were inaccurate (e.g., most German PzGr having APCs).

I haven't played the Revised one. I looked it over and didn't prefer the use of artillery observers, but I enjoyed his detailed OOB. Very comprehensive and impressive.

IMHO both are great additions to my scenario list!

I am almost finished with my own version that uses elements from both of these as well as my own research. I extend the map to include more on the flanks (4 ID & 78 ID) plus some strategy options to add additional flavor. Next I'll need someone else to playtest it with me.

Bob

[FM WarB]

Bob,

[FM WarB]

Bob,

[FM WarB]

Sorry had Blitz page problems.
Dark Winter was more purely my oob. Although the 1k/hex scale cries out for detail, I think if Army Group commanders are mucking around with batalion tactics, unplayable monsters can be created. Problems and tradeoffs, playabilty vs detail, the scenario designer's headache. I kicked around the arty observer idea, and rejected it as well.
Before Dark Winter went "to the press" I noticed an oob mistake. 2 and 3 US armored divs are represented inaccurately, with an extra m4 tank company per batalion. Got in there, anyway. I've been also wrestling with ways to include jumbos and m4 76s, given the combine/breakdown game system restraints and lack of specific information.
If you think the U.S. has no chance in dark winter, get aload of that Wacht am Rhein scenario, where no U.S. engineers can build bridges...lol
Warren

[Rev Rico]

Warren,
I agree that sometimes we can add too much detail; this is supposed to be an operational level game anyway.
Please fill me in on the OOB mistake with the 2 & 3 Armd Div so I can make sure to avoid it in my scn. And yes, the variety of US Shermans does add a dilemma. Do you have accurate numbers of each in the OOB?
I didn't say that I thought the US had no chance, just that my two US opponents thought so. I'm experimenting with slowing up the Germans slightly by adding CONGESTION hexes to represent the traffic jams of Dec 16th.. I just find that in the hands of a good player the Germans can advance way too quickly in some places (e.g., through the Loshiem Gap).
What has been your experiences?

Bob

[Kuriltai]

I believe the US 2nd and 3rd Armored Division's had a different establishment than the rest of the Divisions.Not sure if your OOB reflects this or not.

[FM WarB]

T.O.E. calls for the tank regiment to have two medium batalions each with three companies and one light batalion with three companies. Practical experience showed the light tank batalion to be ineffective, so the companies were intermixed, yielding batalions with two medium and one light company apiece.
The standard tank batalion has three medium and one light company. Unfortunately, the tank batalions of 2 and 3 Armored divisions appear in these oobs as standard tank batalions.

[FM WarB]

I do not have specific numbers. A guess is the newer divisions (9, 10, 11+) had M4 76s and the veteran divisions had a mix. I would guess relatively few if any M4 76s and jumbos went to the veteran independent tank batalions assigned to infantry divisions. Dupuy says the armored divisions had 20-30 Jumbos apiece with independent batalions having maybe a platoon. Something like one third M4 76s in the veteran tank divisions might be correct.
How to mix them in, given the combine/breakdown rules is the problem. Although I usually dont like it, perhaps using "mixed" M4 units, somewhat stronger than standard M4s may be a way to go.

[Rev Rico]