I fell in love with LB when it came out and played it (solo using Vassal) to death for about a year. I eagerly snapped up the next games in the series, but was put off by the comparatively less interesting situations and the nit-picking rule changes that seemed unnecessary, but made it difficult for me to unlearn the 1.0 rules. I now have Panzers Last Stand, have read the 2.0 rules, and have fallen back in love again. I have started a new full campaign of LB and am once again overwhelmed by the brilliance of the way Dean Essig has chosen to rework the industry standards to change how operational level warfare is simulated. I have already got rid of my previous games on the Bulge, and while I appreciate the effort that has gone into ATfT I can't see mayself making a purchase of it, or any other Bulge game.
Hearing the perspective of one who has played multiple popular versions of a battle at the same scale and perspective is extremely valuable!! Good on ya, mate!!!
Thanks for a really great analysis of these two games. It feels like I might have made the right choice by going with Last Blitzkrieg. ATFT feels a bit too close to my memories of SPI’s Wacht am Rhine of many moons ago. I’d love to see more similar comparisons of games covering the same subject matter. Incidentally, your live play throughs always seemed to fall during my morning coffee break 👍. Now to read the rules 🙂, and clip the counters ☹️. Cheers, Geoff
Very good comparation. Great job Nathan. For me is hands down BCS. Elegant, fast paced system. Once you learn the rules and play 3 or 4 times you can go and memorize the 3 or 4 tables needed. I've never had so smooth play with other systems of similar complexity and detail.
Thanks for this Nathan, you've got a real gift for these videos. Coherent, well produced, while still being personal and organic. Both games do seem to have their pros and cons. One thing that's seems almost paradoxical is the difference of hex scale, that from watching the play throughs seems to contribute a lot towards the plodding feeling of TfT.
I’ve always seen BCS (Last Blitzkrieg) as your fighting with divisions (or formation), in a sense but your moving and fighting with the individual elements with in the division or formation to get the result you get in a larger scale game rolling on CRT. I have always been drawn to that and why I love BCS.
What an excellent comparison, particularly mechanic of showing comparable positions and situations in both games and how they are handled. Thank you for all of your videos. You've gotten me excited about getting into LB.
Really appreciate the effort you put into all of this Nathan. As a result of your videos I have picked up LB, PLS, BC and am really looking forward to them. This is in large part due to your "thinking out loud" approach in your live plays which gives me a real insight into the decision-making required in the game. I aim to get this to the table rather than VASSAL though. I'm playing this solo as any local opponents would not be able to make it over to play regularly to get this done in reasonable time. That said, this makes LB much more appealing than ATFT as 1 turn/day vs multiple turns/day. It is also great to learn a rules system that can be flexibly applied to multiple contexts without excessive special rules. ATFT still appeals to me as a historical study and the detail put into its development. I suspect though I would start but never finish it and the "fiddlyness" would eventually make me put it away. The box art keeps calling to me though :).
Yea, LB's map is inferior, but you HAVE to have a village list for TFT. There is one available on BGG, I think. Otherwise, you will be spending hours looking up obscure village hexes, as they are listed WITHOUT hex number.
Thanks Wise Guy! This is one of the best game reviews I've read in the past three years. I love the side-by-side dueling game approach. In my opinion, this "compare and contrast" style actually conveys more useful purchase and play information than most single game reviews. Since I know you've done a number of Bulge game reviews, I have some suggestions for improvement. First, I'd like to see more use of both maps during these side-by-side reviews as showing game graphics and play situations is far more efficient than talking through complex abstract concepts like Activation, Turn Structure, Time scale, and Exploitation. I know that this might result in a much longer review, but I think you should aim to incorporate more visual aided discussion while keeping the overall review at or close to the same duration. Second, because the side-by-side approach greatly expands the interest level of game reviews, I'd be pleased to see you take this approach much further, using perhaps an NFL playoff-like approach. So eventually, we can watch your version of the Bulge Game Review Superbowl, in which the champion Bulge game of the year is crowned. Finally, the two-game approach is so much richer, I urge you to undertake and/or encourage more such reviews. For example, as a designer currently working on a strategic WWII Pacific game, I would love to see a duel review of two current market favorites such as Empire of the Sun versus War in the Pacific. In fact, I would love to be able to subscribe to a Game Duel channel. Single game reviews are degenerating into unboxing/fan endorsements. Like football games, wargame reviews need to undergo tougher matchups, to bring out the best experience for designers, game buyers and game players.
Thanks Leslie, I appreciate the feedback. The hardest part in doing these is playing the games enough to do them justice. I want to have a good sense, not only of gameplay, but broader issues to give an informed view. This is particularly difficult with these heavy games. I'd love to do it, but the big issue is time investment required.
@@WiseGuyHistory Believe me, I know how much prep work is behind your reviews. My game designs as well as the screenplays I write often take more than a year of concentrated labor. Building up the knowledge of both gameplay and the historical foundation of a serious wargame is an act of devotion. The good news is that this prep work is immediately apparent to history aficionados who watch your reviews. I routinely watch a half-dozen different game reviewers on you tube and your reviews are the best. Unlike most game reviewers, you have a mature, professional approach and a deep knowledge of your subject matter. So, it's a joy to see you tackle complex games we don't have enough time to play. I'm currently trying to decide between Dark Valley, Dark Summer and Deadly Woods, so I'm hoping you may review the Dark series games designed by Ted Raicer sometime soon.
@@WiseGuyHistory While I have your attention, I'd like to pose a question. I've been watching several more of your videos, so this is a general question, but it struck me as I watched all of your Last Bltitzkrieg and other Bulge game reviews. It's a simple, but serious question. In your discussion, you emphasize the quantity, variety, and complexity of decision choices the game presents, and the fact that you must also do a lot of planning ahead. You also mention that even a short, one map scenario took a long time to play. My question is: does it bother you (as a history guy) that playing the game is unrealistic in the sense that the actual commanders lacked the situational intelligence and the time to sift through this many choices? I doubt the field commanders were aware of the types of decisions you address as the game player). You seem to care a lot about history, but you don't seem to worry that the methodical pace of play does not remotely correspond to the historical time constraints. As a history-focused designer, this type of trade-off undermines my enjoyment of a game. I can't accept the omnicient overvew the game affords or the time expansion discrepancy. Have you considered using a play clock and more hidden setup/movement rules to steer the game in the direction of more uncertainty and less playthrough time? Or is the game totally separate from the historical situation in your mind as you play?
Great question Leslie; this boils down to 'why I play games'. I play games with friends and family for fun, and I play solo games like these for the satisfying decision making processes both sides make, and the broader 'story' that unfolds. I may be in a minority of wargamers, as I don't play wargames or historical games to necessarily 'recreate' historical situations and 'test' scenarios. Rather, I gravitate towards certain situations [eg. The Bulge] because of the interesting situations that tend to develop in those situations, and the tension between the two sides. It's why my favourite game is Paths of Glory, because it excels at that (decisions, tension), despite the historical concerns that many criticise it for. I like to be immersed in a historical setting, but I'm not too much of a stickler for historical accuracy and believability. I did a video on a similar theme here which covers some of that: ua-cam.com/video/E9WOXyrG2q0/v-deo.html
@@WiseGuyHistory Thanks for taking the time to reply again. After I sent you my question about playing time versus historical time in the Bulge games you discussed, I found your video about a similar topic (the one you referenced in your reply). Although I'm surprised by your facile separation of game play and historical study, I do understand. In fact, I think the majority of gamers side with you. As a wargame designer, I tend to follow a very different path. My interest in designing and playing games is all about understanding why things happened one way and not another. I'm also very interested in understanding how alternative decisions might have changed history. For me, wargames are a "history teaching" machine. If a game does not address key historical questions, I give it a pass regardless of its fun dividend and competitive play qualities. When I design a game, it's because I have questions that can't be solved by reading a history book. By a lucky coincidence, I'm currently reading an amazing book that explores how wargaming at the Naval War College in Newport, RI during the interwar period, greatly influenced the course and outcome of the naval conflict between the USN and the IJN. The book is named, "Winning a Future War - Wargaming and Victory in the Pacific" by Norman Friedman. This is one of a few books that reinforced my own game design ethos. The games designed and played at the Naval War College were not crafted so future officers could take a beer and pretzels study break. They were designed to test alternative ship designs and teach campaign strategies that would help these players win the future Orange War against Japan. Reading this book not only gives one insight into how the Americans won the Pacific Naval War, it illuminates the process of designing innovative wargames intended to help future naval officers avoid costly mistakes fighting the next chapter in military history. No other navy seriously studied the impact carrier airpower would have when war broke out in the Pacific Theatre . Not the British, not the Germans, Not Yamamoto. It is not an overstatement to say that wargaming defeated Japan. Nor is it wise to believe that manuals and fleet exercises will carry the day when the next war starts. Playing wargames is more important than having fun. If the designers take their job seriously, their tabletop games may save countless lives.
WOW. Well done, thorough and insightful. Heavily leaning towards the BCS based system since it seems to have impressed so many experienced gamers. For those of us a little more constrained on time, the base system (BCS, SCS, OCS, ZoC bond, etc....) choosing really becomes the issue. I really like the idea of learning one and having a highly functional and playable series to buy into. BCS series seems to definitely shine, elevating LB. With all that said, Ardennes '44 is it for me as far as Bulge games goes, LOL.
A incredibly valuable & insightful review of all inclusive categories for both of these great Ardennes games. Each category is well balanced expressing a healthy unbiased subtle differences. An exceptional review. Last Blitzkrieg has been on my purchase list for several yrs now. Big thank you.
Really enjoyed this, Nathan. Very thorough and fair. I have ATFT, still haven't made the time to play it, but fascinated by all the detail in the game. Really looking forward to it when I'm more settled down. BCS is one of my favorite recent game systems. (and I have played it a bit, but I'd also call myself a beginner. It creates very interesting 'puzzles' on the map.)
Excellent comparison of the two systems! A couple of observations that I didn’t hear mentioned. ATfT has an option of artillery parks to take the bulk of the german artys off the board to reduce clutter. Also, the variable weather conditions are linked to ZOCs. That makes localized exploits or retreats more fluid. Also, the IGO/UGO system may play better in the campaign game with the five -player complement as the players on one side can play simultaneously.
An excellent dual review, Nathan. Very helpful and engaging particularly in aiding me in choosing a game. Even on a subject Bulge/Ardennes which I'm not too enamoured about. I'm sold for TLB and shall now look into it. Have tried SCS and enjoy it. Have a few games in OCS (yet to play) and have one GTS Operation Mercury. Again thank you for such a very well put together video. You have an excellent ability with them.
Excellent comparison. I love how you broke this down into so many different components. You clearly demonstrated how two monster games on the same topic can be so vastly different. You also confirmed my choice with Last Blitzkrieg. I have played the game quite a bit and am waiting to get Panzers Last Stand on the table. Time for Trumpets was a game that I was going to buy but am now convinced that it seems just a little too nit picky for me. Big fan of your channel. I have no idea how you have so much time to produce such fantastic videos. Keep up the great work.
Thanks for the review, until now I was leaning towards LB (but with some reservations for battalion damage tracking and unclear maps), but now I'm more firmly in the ATFT camp - what mainly convinced me to shift was the less "all or nothing" approach and 6-hours turns (in contrast to 1 day/turn in LB)
Excellent review and comparison. The key is, as you say, the time scale, which forces players into a greater or lesser degree of control of the maneuver units. 6 hour turns versus one day is a huge difference and is in my opinion more important than the strikingly different combat systems. Time for Trumpets aims at showing how offensive and riposte work on a highly detailed level; Last Blitzkrieg goes for abstracting out many operational elements to the point where a single Snafu die roll will hobble you for an entire day. TLB plays much faster and more smoothly, obviously. But is fast play and much less downtime for the non-phasing player really what you are looking for in a monster game like these with pretensions to be "definitive"? TFT will be more of a slog as you go through your seemingly endless series of shorter turns. However, in a simulation of a battle where artillery was an overwhelming factor, to reduce artillery action as TLB does to a few abstract points tips the scales to Trumpets in my view. In general you might say that TLB occupies the niche between Ardennes 44 and TFT on the comprehensive simulation scale. Whether TFT takes the cake for the ultimate Bulge sim will have to await a review of the GOSS Wacht am Rhein. You're sure to get the wargamer's Medal of Honor if you do a playthrough/review of that one! Well done, sir.
The comment above underscores an important difference between the two games. A Time for Trumpets is a game in the tradition of Bulge games that have been published over more than 40 years, including Wacht am Rhein, Bitter Woods, and Tigers in the Mist. In contrast, Last Blitzkrieg introduces many concepts that are very different from anything in the games that have gone before it. If you're a seasoned wargamer, ATfT will be easier to learn, because most of the concepts are ones that are familiar from other games. On the other hand, LB will provide a perspective that you can't get from those other games.
My god this was impressive....I don't know how you managed to explain these complexities so clearly and concisely.....yes....I know that's what you do.....but damn......well done👍👍👍.......however.....having said that I'm now convinced all you wargamers are absolutely gone insane.....while I who have never played such games am completely sane 🙄🙄🙄🤔🤔🤔🙄😏😏😏.....meanwhile back in reality ......I don't know if I could chose one.....I like and dislike attributes of both. First I was leaning towards LB because of the hexes and map.....then towards ATFT because of the breakdown of counters/units depicted.....I have long been breaking down the units into more counters the games I play.....with the attending rule/modification changes I deem necessary.....the play I'm totally split on.....like the more back and forth interaction of the opponents in LB.....but I'll take the 6 hrs over a full day.....I might be tempted to cut it down more. OK....now I've gone insane too 🤣🤣🤣🙃🤪😲.....I'll probably throw my hands up and just get both when and if the time comes....maybe I'll separate both rule books into individual pages and shuffle them together like a deck of cards....but first I gotta get through a few other games/campaigns
@@WiseGuyHistory Not sure.....sounds familiar ......might have it somewhere.....been quite some time since I played a board game.....basement disaster.....was thinking of getting the D-Day Quad....and playing that first to start off my WW2 adventures.....what do you think?......I don't know that I'm too concerned about game complexity.....I mean I been watching you play and seen you do the same as I and take it in stride....like when we forget to apply a certain rule to a particular situation ....sometimes I've started the whole game over if it's irritated me to that point....sometimes I've just chugged on.....will take any advice you may share.....sorry....sometimes I watch and forget to hit the like....or download vid to watch later.....great channel though....has inspired me to get back into this.....as soon as I get the damn basement squared away
HI WG. As promised below, I'm writing to let you know that so far I purchased four Bulge games: 1)John Butterfield's Battle of the Bulge solo game, 2) Avalon Hill's Battle of the Bulge Smithsonian edition, 3) Ty Bomba's Bulge: The Battle for the Ardennes, 16 Dec 1944-2 Jan 1945 , and 4) Roger Miller's Celles: The Ardennes, December 23-27th 1944. I'm still trying to avoid monster games although I did purchase Mark Herman's Pacific War rerelease since I'm currently designing a non-monster Pacific game titled Divine Wind. I'm working on my biceps so I'll be able to grab the GMT box off a high shelf.
I prefer Last Blitzkrieg for many reasons, it's faster, has more interesting decisions, there's a lot more tension, and there's far less administration. I think they're both very well suited for solo play, it really depends on what style you prefer.
This was well done! In my opinion, the combat system of LB has some issues. Use of artillery during defense is one problem, but to me, the red AV combat system needs work. Maybe it has been worked out, but in the first edition, it had problems. While not a major problem in LB (most red units are AFV's), it becomes problematic in BC when German armored cars are destroying Matildas. Morale outweighs the actual armor/AP capabilities. Also, combat is death by a thousand cuts. Also, I noticed in playing LB, the 7th Army virtually disappears from the map due to attrition when playing the long game. Who is going to use their German replacements to outfit the 212VG? Every 3rd Army game ended up with the Americans advancing into and beyond the West Wall. LB is not a bad game, but it has its issues. On the other hand, in ATFT, the "no retreat through an EZOC" - which is NOT canceled out by a friendly unit - is problematic as well. You can conceivably lose several full-strength units with a DR1. 50 tanks and a battalion of infantry are not even going to retreat THROUGH the 1 mile zone of a FRIENDLY unit? Ardennes 44 has a determined defense rule, at least. The designer' response - "do a better job in defending". Well, combat is not generally "you go, I watch"... So a house rule in allowing a unit to retreat through another friendly seems in order - and acceptable in most other games on this scale. Overall, either game is worth spending several 100 hours with.
Great points J Manstein! I hadn't thought much about defensive artillery in LB but now you note it, yes, I agree. Also agree with EZOCs in ATFT, that rule doesn't seem to 'fit' within the otherwise detailed system.
@@WiseGuyHistory Wise Guy, Again, an outstanding job on comparing two simulations. This thorough analysis is rare and very much appreciated. Each game has their pro's and con's. I have gotten my money out of both games! The good thing about a board wargame (vs computer) is that you can make a home rule - such as the case for ATFT's retreat through a friendly unit. Really can't do that with a computer. Plus, you don't get the big picture very well with a computer game - even vassal. If someone has the room, go with either/both games! Take care
Even tough TfT seem to have much nicer production values, ive felt afterquick reads in rulesbook that chrome is way too much. Also heard stories about lot of errata. Last blitz seem to be better choise for me. Still like Bitter woods alot
@@WiseGuyHistory Yes, i skimmed yesterday again through Trumpet rules and scenario booklets, just too much exceptions on top of exceptions for different mechanics and scenarios. Would love to have it, but afraid of getting it and setting it up on table and then pack it up and sale it before finishing first play.
Have to add more comments (and more thumbs up) as I watch this!! I LOVE how you show completely parallel map areas and representative units that you might find in each game, for lots of side-by-side comparison!!! The map style comparison was interesting to see. Although I'll give the nod to LB for having organic terrain representation (full-fill terrain gives a very artificial look), the "usual MMP map design errors" return to make the map a stinker: white hex borders, a spring/fall Ardennes color palette, those clunky, bold every-five-hex hex IDs that form jagged "scars", and the unfortunate font choices seem to be badges of (dishonor) for all Essig designs. He just **doesn't get it** when it comes to graphic design. Regards "downtime": this concept is very overrated. Even in a U-GO-I-GO monster game, like TfT, the non-phasing player is NOT (or rather, *should not be*) inactive just because (s)he is not physically moving cardboard. A seemingly idle player can use that time to a) make sure the opponent is following the rules in his/her operations b) prepare for the coming turn by organizing reinforcements, making decisions on entry, "reactions", etc. and c) watching to see if the enemy is reacting as you've predicted, such as falling for a feint, "taking the bait" for a trap you've set, etc. Players who don't feel they're "in the game" if they're not phasing, or if it's not their turn are just not fully engaged. The non-phasing player has PLENTY to do besides scrounge for snacks and take bio-breaks!!!!
In terms of downtime, I'd only ever play this solo so it's not an issue at all for me; I actually think it's a benefit for solo play as you're mainly focusing on one side. I just wanted to raise it in case anyone was thinking of playing this with two-players. You're right in terms of 'being idle', but anyone wanting to make active decisions should be fair-warned.
Concur on the maps entirely. I like the detail on TLB and always prefer real terrain features instead of the honeycomb "fill the hex" graphic approach, but there seem to be a lot of discrepancies. Look at those side by side comparisons again--there are differences in position and names of villages, town size, etc. that can't be accounted for by a difference in hex scale of 1km versus 1 mile. Attention to detail! Which is more accurate/historical? Also, the vital city of Liege (whose capture would have been a solid victory for the Germans) and the Monschau sector, site of some heavy fighting, are left off completely from the TLB maps. It's as if they chopped off a few hundred square miles of important terrain just to fit it all on the standard sheets arrangement. We've seen this before with The Gamer's maps and counter manifests as well (non-existent CS cavalry in Last Chance for Victory, for example). The more I look at these two monsters, the more I prefer Trumpets. But I still would like to see the GOSS version before awarding a gold medal in the Bulge Olympics.
![Game Comparison: Stalingrad '42 [GMT] vs Fall Blau [Compass Games]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Pbv8mwp8JFk/mqdefault.jpg)
![US Civil War - GBACW [GMT] vs Line of Battle [MMP] - Game Series Comparison](/img/n.gif)
I fell in love with LB when it came out and played it (solo using Vassal) to death for about a year. I eagerly snapped up the next games in the series, but was put off by the comparatively less interesting situations and the nit-picking rule changes that seemed unnecessary, but made it difficult for me to unlearn the 1.0 rules.
I now have Panzers Last Stand, have read the 2.0 rules, and have fallen back in love again. I have started a new full campaign of LB and am once again overwhelmed by the brilliance of the way Dean Essig has chosen to rework the industry standards to change how operational level warfare is simulated. I have already got rid of my previous games on the Bulge, and while I appreciate the effort that has gone into ATfT I can't see mayself making a purchase of it, or any other Bulge game.
Dean really is a genius IMO, just reading his game design notes is amazing
Hearing the perspective of one who has played multiple popular versions of a battle at the same scale and perspective is extremely valuable!! Good on ya, mate!!!
Thanks Allen!
Thanks for a really great analysis of these two games.
It feels like I might have made the right choice by going with Last Blitzkrieg. ATFT feels a bit too close to my memories of SPI’s Wacht am Rhine of many moons ago. I’d love to see more similar comparisons of games covering the same subject matter.
Incidentally, your live play throughs always seemed to fall during my morning coffee break 👍.
Now to read the rules 🙂, and clip the counters ☹️.
Cheers,
Geoff
Very good comparation. Great job Nathan.
For me is hands down BCS. Elegant, fast paced system. Once you learn the rules and play 3 or 4 times you can go and memorize the 3 or 4 tables needed. I've never had so smooth play with other systems of similar complexity and detail.
Thank you Nathan. You have provided a detailed and balanced evaluation of these two games/systems. Very Informative and well done.
Wonderful break down I love the compare and contrast of two different games on the same topic. Hope to see more of these.
Thanks for this Nathan, you've got a real gift for these videos. Coherent, well produced, while still being personal and organic.
Both games do seem to have their pros and cons. One thing that's seems almost paradoxical is the difference of hex scale, that from watching the play throughs seems to contribute a lot towards the plodding feeling of TfT.
I’ve always seen BCS (Last Blitzkrieg) as your fighting with divisions (or formation), in a sense but your moving and fighting with the individual elements with in the division or formation to get the result you get in a larger scale game rolling on CRT. I have always been drawn to that and why I love BCS.
I admire your determination. I could not get into Time of Trumpets but I am fully committed to Last Blitzkrieg.
What an excellent comparison, particularly mechanic of showing comparable positions and situations in both games and how they are handled. Thank you for all of your videos. You've gotten me excited about getting into LB.
Really appreciate the effort you put into all of this Nathan. As a result of your videos I have picked up LB, PLS, BC and am really looking forward to them. This is in large part due to your "thinking out loud" approach in your live plays which gives me a real insight into the decision-making required in the game. I aim to get this to the table rather than VASSAL though. I'm playing this solo as any local opponents would not be able to make it over to play regularly to get this done in reasonable time. That said, this makes LB much more appealing than ATFT as 1 turn/day vs multiple turns/day. It is also great to learn a rules system that can be flexibly applied to multiple contexts without excessive special rules.
ATFT still appeals to me as a historical study and the detail put into its development. I suspect though I would start but never finish it and the "fiddlyness" would eventually make me put it away. The box art keeps calling to me though :).
Thanks John! There's a huge difference in the feel of the BCS games, so don't be put off if you find BbF a little dry. LB is VERY different.
I have LB and you've convinced me I shouldn't buy Trumpets. Though I prefer Trumpet's map.
Yea, LB's map is inferior, but you HAVE to have a village list for TFT. There is one available on BGG, I think. Otherwise, you will be spending hours looking up obscure village hexes, as they are listed WITHOUT hex number.
Thanks Wise Guy! This is one of the best game reviews I've read in the past three years. I love the side-by-side dueling game approach. In my opinion, this "compare and contrast" style actually conveys more useful purchase and play information than most single game reviews. Since I know you've done a number of Bulge game reviews, I have some suggestions for improvement. First, I'd like to see more use of both maps during these side-by-side reviews as showing game graphics and play situations is far more efficient than talking through complex abstract concepts like Activation, Turn Structure, Time scale, and Exploitation. I know that this might result in a much longer review, but I think you should aim to incorporate more visual aided discussion while keeping the overall review at or close to the same duration. Second, because the side-by-side approach greatly expands the interest level of game reviews, I'd be pleased to see you take this approach much further, using perhaps an NFL playoff-like approach. So eventually, we can watch your version of the Bulge Game Review Superbowl, in which the champion Bulge game of the year is crowned. Finally, the two-game approach is so much richer, I urge you to undertake and/or encourage more such reviews. For example, as a designer currently working on a strategic WWII Pacific game, I would love to see a duel review of two current market favorites such as Empire of the Sun versus War in the Pacific. In fact, I would love to be able to subscribe to a Game Duel channel. Single game reviews are degenerating into unboxing/fan endorsements. Like football games, wargame reviews need to undergo tougher matchups, to bring out the best experience for designers, game buyers and game players.
Thanks Leslie, I appreciate the feedback. The hardest part in doing these is playing the games enough to do them justice. I want to have a good sense, not only of gameplay, but broader issues to give an informed view. This is particularly difficult with these heavy games. I'd love to do it, but the big issue is time investment required.
@@WiseGuyHistory Believe me, I know how much prep work is behind your reviews. My game designs as well as the screenplays I write often take more than a year of concentrated labor. Building up the knowledge of both gameplay and the historical foundation of a serious wargame is an act of devotion. The good news is that this prep work is immediately apparent to history aficionados who watch your reviews. I routinely watch a half-dozen different game reviewers on you tube and your reviews are the best. Unlike most game reviewers, you have a mature, professional approach and a deep knowledge of your subject matter. So, it's a joy to see you tackle complex games we don't have enough time to play. I'm currently trying to decide between Dark Valley, Dark Summer and Deadly Woods, so I'm hoping you may review the Dark series games designed by Ted Raicer sometime soon.
@@WiseGuyHistory While I have your attention, I'd like to pose a question. I've been watching several more of your videos, so this is a general question, but it struck me as I watched all of your Last Bltitzkrieg and other Bulge game reviews. It's a simple, but serious question. In your discussion, you emphasize the quantity, variety, and complexity of decision choices the game presents, and the fact that you must also do a lot of planning ahead. You also mention that even a short, one map scenario took a long time to play. My question is: does it bother you (as a history guy) that playing the game is unrealistic in the sense that the actual commanders lacked the situational intelligence and the time to sift through this many choices? I doubt the field commanders were aware of the types of decisions you address as the game player). You seem to care a lot about history, but you don't seem to worry that the methodical pace of play does not remotely correspond to the historical time constraints. As a history-focused designer, this type of trade-off undermines my enjoyment of a game. I can't accept the omnicient overvew the game affords or the time expansion discrepancy. Have you considered using a play clock and more hidden setup/movement rules to steer the game in the direction of more uncertainty and less playthrough time? Or is the game totally separate from the historical situation in your mind as you play?
Great question Leslie; this boils down to 'why I play games'. I play games with friends and family for fun, and I play solo games like these for the satisfying decision making processes both sides make, and the broader 'story' that unfolds. I may be in a minority of wargamers, as I don't play wargames or historical games to necessarily 'recreate' historical situations and 'test' scenarios. Rather, I gravitate towards certain situations [eg. The Bulge] because of the interesting situations that tend to develop in those situations, and the tension between the two sides. It's why my favourite game is Paths of Glory, because it excels at that (decisions, tension), despite the historical concerns that many criticise it for. I like to be immersed in a historical setting, but I'm not too much of a stickler for historical accuracy and believability. I did a video on a similar theme here which covers some of that: ua-cam.com/video/E9WOXyrG2q0/v-deo.html
@@WiseGuyHistory Thanks for taking the time to reply again. After I sent you my question about playing time versus historical time in the Bulge games you discussed, I found your video about a similar topic (the one you referenced in your reply). Although I'm surprised by your facile separation of game play and historical study, I do understand. In fact, I think the majority of gamers side with you. As a wargame designer, I tend to follow a very different path. My interest in designing and playing games is all about understanding why things happened one way and not another. I'm also very interested in understanding how alternative decisions might have changed history. For me, wargames are a "history teaching" machine. If a game does not address key historical questions, I give it a pass regardless of its fun dividend and competitive play qualities. When I design a game, it's because I have questions that can't be solved by reading a history book. By a lucky coincidence, I'm currently reading an amazing book that explores how wargaming at the Naval War College in Newport, RI during the interwar period, greatly influenced the course and outcome of the naval conflict between the USN and the IJN. The book is named, "Winning a Future War - Wargaming and Victory in the Pacific" by Norman Friedman. This is one of a few books that reinforced my own game design ethos. The games designed and played at the Naval War College were not crafted so future officers could take a beer and pretzels study break. They were designed to test alternative ship designs and teach campaign strategies that would help these players win the future Orange War against Japan. Reading this book not only gives one insight into how the Americans won the Pacific Naval War, it illuminates the process of designing innovative wargames intended to help future naval officers avoid costly mistakes fighting the next chapter in military history. No other navy seriously studied the impact carrier airpower would have when war broke out in the Pacific Theatre . Not the British, not the Germans, Not Yamamoto. It is not an overstatement to say that wargaming defeated Japan. Nor is it wise to believe that manuals and fleet exercises will carry the day when the next war starts. Playing wargames is more important than having fun. If the designers take their job seriously, their tabletop games may save countless lives.
interesting about the maps
WOW. Well done, thorough and insightful. Heavily leaning towards the BCS based system since it seems to have impressed so many experienced gamers. For those of us a little more constrained on time, the base system (BCS, SCS, OCS, ZoC bond, etc....) choosing really becomes the issue. I really like the idea of learning one and having a highly functional and playable series to buy into. BCS series seems to definitely shine, elevating LB. With all that said, Ardennes '44 is it for me as far as Bulge games goes, LOL.
A incredibly valuable & insightful review of all inclusive categories for both of these great Ardennes games. Each category is well balanced expressing a healthy unbiased subtle differences. An exceptional review. Last Blitzkrieg has been on my purchase list for several yrs now. Big thank you.
Really enjoyed this, Nathan. Very thorough and fair. I have ATFT, still haven't made the time to play it, but fascinated by all the detail in the game. Really looking forward to it when I'm more settled down. BCS is one of my favorite recent game systems. (and I have played it a bit, but I'd also call myself a beginner. It creates very interesting 'puzzles' on the map.)
Excellent comparison of the two systems! A couple of observations that I didn’t hear mentioned. ATfT has an option of artillery parks to take the bulk of the german artys off the board to reduce clutter. Also, the variable weather conditions are linked to ZOCs. That makes localized exploits or retreats more fluid.
Also, the IGO/UGO system may play better in the campaign game with the five -player complement as the players on one side can play simultaneously.
An excellent dual review, Nathan. Very helpful and engaging particularly in aiding me in choosing a game. Even on a subject Bulge/Ardennes which I'm not too enamoured about. I'm sold for TLB and shall now look into it. Have tried SCS and enjoy it. Have a few games in OCS (yet to play) and have one GTS Operation Mercury. Again thank you for such a very well put together video. You have an excellent ability with them.
Excellent comparison. I love how you broke this down into so many different components. You clearly demonstrated how two monster games on the same topic can be so vastly different. You also confirmed my choice with Last Blitzkrieg. I have played the game quite a bit and am waiting to get Panzers Last Stand on the table. Time for Trumpets was a game that I was going to buy but am now convinced that it seems just a little too nit picky for me. Big fan of your channel. I have no idea how you have so much time to produce such fantastic videos. Keep up the great work.
Thanks James; we've been in lockdown lately so lots of spare time!
Very informative comparison. Helps me keep focus on BCS version.
Thanks for the review, until now I was leaning towards LB (but with some reservations for battalion damage tracking and unclear maps), but now I'm more firmly in the ATFT camp - what mainly convinced me to shift was the less "all or nothing" approach and 6-hours turns (in contrast to 1 day/turn in LB)
Yes, good point on the turn length.
What a fantastic and incredibly helpful video!
Excellent review and comparison. The key is, as you say, the time scale, which forces players into a greater or lesser degree of control of the maneuver units. 6 hour turns versus one day is a huge difference and is in my opinion more important than the strikingly different combat systems. Time for Trumpets aims at showing how offensive and riposte work on a highly detailed level; Last Blitzkrieg goes for abstracting out many operational elements to the point where a single Snafu die roll will hobble you for an entire day. TLB plays much faster and more smoothly, obviously. But is fast play and much less downtime for the non-phasing player really what you are looking for in a monster game like these with pretensions to be "definitive"? TFT will be more of a slog as you go through your seemingly endless series of shorter turns. However, in a simulation of a battle where artillery was an overwhelming factor, to reduce artillery action as TLB does to a few abstract points tips the scales to Trumpets in my view. In general you might say that TLB occupies the niche between Ardennes 44 and TFT on the comprehensive simulation scale. Whether TFT takes the cake for the ultimate Bulge sim will have to await a review of the GOSS Wacht am Rhein. You're sure to get the wargamer's Medal of Honor if you do a playthrough/review of that one! Well done, sir.
Thanks palibrae!
The comment above underscores an important difference between the two games. A Time for Trumpets is a game in the tradition of Bulge games that have been published over more than 40 years, including Wacht am Rhein, Bitter Woods, and Tigers in the Mist. In contrast, Last Blitzkrieg introduces many concepts that are very different from anything in the games that have gone before it. If you're a seasoned wargamer, ATfT will be easier to learn, because most of the concepts are ones that are familiar from other games. On the other hand, LB will provide a perspective that you can't get from those other games.
Agree, artillery has limited utilization from the defender's point of view. Numerous German attacks were aborted due to Time on Target attacks.
My god this was impressive....I don't know how you managed to explain these complexities so clearly and concisely.....yes....I know that's what you do.....but damn......well done👍👍👍.......however.....having said that I'm now convinced all you wargamers are absolutely gone insane.....while I who have never played such games am completely sane 🙄🙄🙄🤔🤔🤔🙄😏😏😏.....meanwhile back in reality ......I don't know if I could chose one.....I like and dislike attributes of both. First I was leaning towards LB because of the hexes and map.....then towards ATFT because of the breakdown of counters/units depicted.....I have long been breaking down the units into more counters the games I play.....with the attending rule/modification changes I deem necessary.....the play I'm totally split on.....like the more back and forth interaction of the opponents in LB.....but I'll take the 6 hrs over a full day.....I might be tempted to cut it down more. OK....now I've gone insane too 🤣🤣🤣🙃🤪😲.....I'll probably throw my hands up and just get both when and if the time comes....maybe I'll separate both rule books into individual pages and shuffle them together like a deck of cards....but first I gotta get through a few other games/campaigns
Have you played Ardennes '44 Stephen, I'd always recommend starting with that before getting either of these.
@@WiseGuyHistory Not sure.....sounds familiar ......might have it somewhere.....been quite some time since I played a board game.....basement disaster.....was thinking of getting the D-Day Quad....and playing that first to start off my WW2 adventures.....what do you think?......I don't know that I'm too concerned about game complexity.....I mean I been watching you play and seen you do the same as I and take it in stride....like when we forget to apply a certain rule to a particular situation ....sometimes I've started the whole game over if it's irritated me to that point....sometimes I've just chugged on.....will take any advice you may share.....sorry....sometimes I watch and forget to hit the like....or download vid to watch later.....great channel though....has inspired me to get back into this.....as soon as I get the damn basement squared away
This was great. Thank you.
Thanks Gerardo!
HI WG. As promised below, I'm writing to let you know that so far I purchased four Bulge games: 1)John Butterfield's Battle of the Bulge solo game, 2) Avalon Hill's Battle of the Bulge Smithsonian edition, 3) Ty Bomba's Bulge: The Battle for the Ardennes, 16 Dec 1944-2 Jan 1945 , and 4) Roger Miller's Celles: The Ardennes, December 23-27th 1944. I'm still trying to avoid monster games although I did purchase Mark Herman's Pacific War rerelease since I'm currently designing a non-monster Pacific game titled Divine Wind. I'm working on my biceps so I'll be able to grab the GMT box off a high shelf.
Nice choices, let me know your thoughts on them.
@@WiseGuyHistory Will do. And I'll be following your Bulge reviews as well.
Well done review. I own Time of Trumpets, but have not played it yet. Your review has piqued my interest in Last Blitzkrieg.
Geez - well done. Is Ardennes 44 at the same level? Or is it one level up?
Yes, it's up one A-44 is Regimental
Which of the two Bulge games do you personally prefer? Is ATFT more suitable for solitaire play (despite its size)?
I prefer Last Blitzkrieg for many reasons, it's faster, has more interesting decisions, there's a lot more tension, and there's far less administration. I think they're both very well suited for solo play, it really depends on what style you prefer.
This was well done!
In my opinion, the combat system of LB has some issues. Use of artillery during defense is one problem, but to me, the red AV combat system needs work. Maybe it has been worked out, but in the first edition, it had problems. While not a major problem in LB (most red units are AFV's), it becomes problematic in BC when German armored cars are destroying Matildas. Morale outweighs the actual armor/AP capabilities. Also, combat is death by a thousand cuts. Also, I noticed in playing LB, the 7th Army virtually disappears from the map due to attrition when playing the long game. Who is going to use their German replacements to outfit the 212VG? Every 3rd Army game ended up with the Americans advancing into and beyond the West Wall. LB is not a bad game, but it has its issues.
On the other hand, in ATFT, the "no retreat through an EZOC" - which is NOT canceled out by a friendly unit - is problematic as well. You can conceivably lose several full-strength units with a DR1. 50 tanks and a battalion of infantry are not even going to retreat THROUGH the 1 mile zone of a FRIENDLY unit? Ardennes 44 has a determined defense rule, at least. The designer' response - "do a better job in defending". Well, combat is not generally "you go, I watch"... So a house rule in allowing a unit to retreat through another friendly seems in order - and acceptable in most other games on this scale.
Overall, either game is worth spending several 100 hours with.
Great points J Manstein! I hadn't thought much about defensive artillery in LB but now you note it, yes, I agree. Also agree with EZOCs in ATFT, that rule doesn't seem to 'fit' within the otherwise detailed system.
@@WiseGuyHistory Wise Guy, Again, an outstanding job on comparing two simulations. This thorough analysis is rare and very much appreciated. Each game has their pro's and con's. I have gotten my money out of both games! The good thing about a board wargame (vs computer) is that you can make a home rule - such as the case for ATFT's retreat through a friendly unit. Really can't do that with a computer. Plus, you don't get the big picture very well with a computer game - even vassal.
If someone has the room, go with either/both games!
Take care
Wait one: 18:22. Did I hear that right? Did you say "dogs" as a combat modifier??? A German shepherd column shift???? :o
Haha, STUGS! The dog modifier applies on the Eastern Front I believe...
@@WiseGuyHistory Sturmgescheutze!!! (I wonder if actual Germans call them "shtoog's")
Even tough TfT seem to have much nicer production values, ive felt afterquick reads in rulesbook that chrome is way too much. Also heard stories about lot of errata. Last blitz seem to be better choise for me. Still like Bitter woods alot
The errata isn't too bad, but it is a big and complex game. The biggest issue may be play time and scale.
@@WiseGuyHistory Yes, i skimmed yesterday again through Trumpet rules and scenario booklets, just too much exceptions on top of exceptions for different mechanics and scenarios. Would love to have it, but afraid of getting it and setting it up on table and then pack it up and sale it before finishing first play.
Have to add more comments (and more thumbs up) as I watch this!!
I LOVE how you show completely parallel map areas and representative units that you might find in each game, for lots of side-by-side comparison!!!
The map style comparison was interesting to see. Although I'll give the nod to LB for having organic terrain representation (full-fill terrain gives a very artificial look), the "usual MMP map design errors" return to make the map a stinker: white hex borders, a spring/fall Ardennes color palette, those clunky, bold every-five-hex hex IDs that form jagged "scars", and the unfortunate font choices seem to be badges of (dishonor) for all Essig designs. He just **doesn't get it** when it comes to graphic design.
Regards "downtime": this concept is very overrated. Even in a U-GO-I-GO monster game, like TfT, the non-phasing player is NOT (or rather, *should not be*) inactive just because (s)he is not physically moving cardboard. A seemingly idle player can use that time to a) make sure the opponent is following the rules in his/her operations b) prepare for the coming turn by organizing reinforcements, making decisions on entry, "reactions", etc. and c) watching to see if the enemy is reacting as you've predicted, such as falling for a feint, "taking the bait" for a trap you've set, etc. Players who don't feel they're "in the game" if they're not phasing, or if it's not their turn are just not fully engaged. The non-phasing player has PLENTY to do besides scrounge for snacks and take bio-breaks!!!!
In terms of downtime, I'd only ever play this solo so it's not an issue at all for me; I actually think it's a benefit for solo play as you're mainly focusing on one side. I just wanted to raise it in case anyone was thinking of playing this with two-players. You're right in terms of 'being idle', but anyone wanting to make active decisions should be fair-warned.
Concur on the maps entirely. I like the detail on TLB and always prefer real terrain features instead of the honeycomb "fill the hex" graphic approach, but there seem to be a lot of discrepancies. Look at those side by side comparisons again--there are differences in position and names of villages, town size, etc. that can't be accounted for by a difference in hex scale of 1km versus 1 mile. Attention to detail! Which is more accurate/historical? Also, the vital city of Liege (whose capture would have been a solid victory for the Germans) and the Monschau sector, site of some heavy fighting, are left off completely from the TLB maps. It's as if they chopped off a few hundred square miles of important terrain just to fit it all on the standard sheets arrangement. We've seen this before with The Gamer's maps and counter manifests as well (non-existent CS cavalry in Last Chance for Victory, for example).
The more I look at these two monsters, the more I prefer Trumpets. But I still would like to see the GOSS version before awarding a gold medal in the Bulge Olympics.
Apparently you can never have too many games on doomed, ill-thought-out, pointless slugfests.