The Designer writes us on his own game: The Battle of the Bulge (BW) is scheduled for release by Avalon Hill in the third quarter of 1998. It represents a return to traditional, hexagonal board wargaming. However, don't be mislead by the term traditional; BW offers a level of excitement and fun that few board wargames deliver.

BW represents my fourth involvement in a Bulge game and is a culmination of those prior efforts. My first experience was as a playtester for Avalon Hill's Battle of the Bulge 1981 edition, designed by Bruno Sinigaglio. To assure a successful game, I asked previous Bulge game designers to participate. Thankfully, they all graciously agreed to do so. For example, I spent time at Danny Parker's home where we discussed design philosophy and specific rules. Danny can take personal credit for the Divisional Integrity Rule, which encompasses a required flanking attack. Bruno is credited with the rules of engagement, and Dr. Henry Lowood, of Stanford University, named and modified the “Angriff Aus Der Bewegung” (Attack on the Move).

Mark Simonitch served admirably as the game's graphic artist. In addition to towns, Mark and I decided to add those villages of historical interest to serve as landmarks for the historian. The first one that comes to mind is Baugnez, the infamous site of the Malmedy massacre (yes, it is possible for a SS massacre to occur within the game's framework). Playtester Phil Evans traveled to Europe where he motored Kampfruppe Peiper's Battle Route to confirm BW's road net in this important area. Mark's four color artwork is truly magnificent and does justice to the topography of the battlefield.

I am particularly proud of BW's order of battle (OB) and order of appearance. The OB research was a consortium consisting of Bruno, Danny, and myself. The combat values are derived from a statistical analysis. The endurance ratings were more subjectively derived, but well proofed by Danny and agreed upon by the three of us. As an example of the accuracy of the order of appearance, witness the 101st Airborne's arrival at Bastogne. The 101st did not arrive at its staging area, in the vicinity of Bastogne, until the early morning hours of 19 December. Most Bulge games have the unit arriving in Bastogne on the evening of 18 December.

Few Bulge games accurately depict the heroic siege and relief of Bastogne. In fact, most experienced Allied players prefer to abandon this vital road junction rather than sacrifice valuable units to a defense that seems to easily succumb to the first German attack. BW not only encourages a defense of Bastogne, but actually allows the Allied player a reasonable chance of retaining the town. Since its capture is not absolutely necessary to win the game, the German player is often torn between maintaining a forward momentum or diverting a Panzer Corps to besiege the town.

As I researched the battle I soon came to the conclusion that, in the Ardennes, the true “queen of the battlefield” was American artillery. At this time, U.S. artillery had a communication and fire-control system that had no equal in the world. The Americans employed a Time-on-Target(TOT) concentration which massed the fire from several artillery battalions onto a target calculating the time of flight so that they landed at the same instant. The effect of a TOT was often devastating. Further enhancing the deadliness of the U.S. artillery was the recent deployment of POZIT, a proximity fuse containing a tiny radar that triggered reliable detonation of the round in the air, further enhancing the effect of TOT. Ammunition was plentiful and used prodigiously. The 30th Division artillery alone fired 57,275 rounds against Kampfgruppe Peiper in the vicinity of LaGleize-Stoumont. The power of American artillery is reflected in BW. Its appropriate use will strongly influence Allied success.

Leader Units will prove to be a two-edged sword. Although they provide the defender with the capability of retaining a defensive position rather than retreating, their ability to release reserves for mechanized exploitation is perhaps the greatest weapon in either army's offensive arsenal. The Allied player will have to keep an ever watchful eye out for the chance of a German Mechanized breakthrough and attempt to provide a defense in depth whenever possible.

How does BW Play?

Fast, furious, and potentially explosive. Historically, breakthroughs were possible and occurred in one degree or another. BW's design concepts capitalize on this. Although Kampfgruppe Peiper's breakout is not a given, when it does occur, the German player is presented with a number of challenging decisions. Should the unit search for a hidden fuel dump or block incoming Allied reinforcements? Is there danger in the unit being cut-off and where can it best defend against the inevitable Allied counter-attack?

I would like to digress for a moment and discuss playtesting. Literally hundreds of hours of playtesting went into the design of BW. I consider quality playtesting as important, if not more so, than good game development. On top of this, the experience and knowledge of the playtesters is paramount. Playtesters of disparate gaming ability often reveal very little and can sometimes lead the developer in the wrong directions. For this reason, I sought out Battle of the Bulge Tournament winners and, in one case, traveled out of state to solicit his input. I am particularly grateful to each of them.

During the latter half of a campaign game, I recall one playtester saying, “this game remains exciting.” At that point I recognized that I had attained success with BW. I believe that this Bulge game has achieved the best balance of historicity, “chrome,” and playability. I hope that you will find it as enjoyable to play as it has been for me to design.

You are welcome to cast your vote for the marketing of BW by visiting the Web Site at http://www.gprep.org/~cheller/bitter.hml

This article appears in MagWeb (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web.
Other articles covering military history and related topics are available at http://www.magweb.com