The Battle of the Bulge has gripped the imagination of wargamers since the dawn of the hobby. A desperate gamble by a cornered Hitler, it saw massed panzers descend on a complacent and unprepared US Army. But success was ephemeral, as American resistance stiffened and the Germans ran low on fuel. Then Patton's Third Army drove northward, relieving the paratroopers at Bastogne, and cutting up the Bulge. Ardennes is Dean Essig's venture into the fertile territory of Bulge wargaming. It uses the Standard Combat System, a fairly simple operational approach. Essentially, it is an updated descendent of PanzerGruppe Guderian (SPI/Avalon Hill), except that mechanized units in reserve are the only ones that can make exploitation movement after combat. In terms of scale, it follows the general model for the battle; turns are daily, hexes are a mile across, and units are primarily regiments, battalions and kampfgruppen. My initial impressions of Ardennes were extremely favorable. As usual for work from The Gamers, the computer generated graphics are excellent. However, the box art portraying SS troopers is not the best choice. After all, this was an historical triumph of American arms, and besides, the image of the SS at Malmedy is a lot less appealing than that of the Airborne at Bastogne. Furthermore, the system itself is an inherently good one. It is simple, sensible and accessible, familiar to veterans and easily grasped by novices. Too bad that the first impressions didn't last. Though Ardennes is built on a sound foundation, on the whole the game is a disturbingly weak effort, which became all too apparent in extended play. First of all, it is the only game in my experience that dares to punish combined arms tactics. Heavy forest does make bad tank country, and armor should be portrayed as working more effectively in the open. Yet the method adopted for this game designer violates the principles both of good design work and history. In Ardennes, if the majority of strength committed to an attack comes from mechanized units, and the defenders occupy a more restricted terrain type, the attack is shifted one odds column in the defender's favor. This is a basically negative approach, which runs against player's instinct and common sense. It punishes the norm instead of rewarding conditions more favorable than the norm. Far better would have been to lower the attack strength of armored units, maybe by as much as half, but then allow them to attack at double the printed strength into clear terrain. This is similar to a more sophisticated, and extremely satisfactory, approach to terrain problems in Korea 1995 (GMT). Moreover, it is a major mistake to penalize mechanized infantry as though it was armor. The game completely ignores their predilection for fighting dismounted. Just as serious is the overestimation of Germany's special forces. In the real-life version of Wacht am Rhein, ultimately these were disappointing gimmicks, whose impact was limited to the earliest stages of the offensive. But in Ardennes, they are potentially war-winning assets. To make matters worse, their effectiveness does not go down in time, as the enemy catches on to their tricks. Like them, in the end Ardennes is a bitter disappointment. Despite a fascinating subject and a game system with great potential, it falls markedly short in its accomplishments. Jim Werbaneth is editor and publisher of the internationally acclaimed newsletter Line of Departure. Back to Cry Havoc #11 Table of Contents Back to Cry Havoc List of Issues Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List © Copyright 1995 by David W. Tschanz. This article appears in MagWeb (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web. Other military history articles and gaming articles are available at http://www.magweb.com