I'm such a hypocrite! When people post "I really wanted to like this game...", I get all snotty when they type that statement, and yet...here we are! I have soooo many books on this subject, and have played soooo many games (starting with AH back in 1976), that it's hard to pick a favorite. But this is definitely not one of them. Let's give it a 2 out of 5 stars for context. The word for the day is 'frustration'. I started with all the small scenarios first, and then moved on to the campaigns. In the end, I cannot recommend this game for a variety of reasons:
- The main one being such a ridiculously incomplete manual. So many tools/functions not discussed, it really is an exercise in frustration. For people like us, playing games like this, details matter.
- Another problem is the graphics or more accurately, a lack of contrast. The whole map is this muted off-green/grey, it really makes it difficult to stay focused and know which area is which. Trying to track supply coverage is a real pain and it uses individual pathways to supply. Good luck trying to keep track of command unity. Click on a unit and its sister units will silhouette in white (neon green or red would be so much more effective). Not enough sub-selection categories either (like just highlighting leaders, engineers, or artillery)
- Another huge issue is the odds/probability generator. Actually, this should probably be my #1 concern. If I attack a single truck at 1000:1, the truck should not survive under any circumstances. And I have lost count how many times I'll get extremely lopsided odds in my favor, fight the battle, and just ONE enemy unit will survive (like one truck and one tractor). It happens A LOT! Units without armament should not be able to hold a position. Also, why does the order of my unit selection change the odds when doing a 'regular' attack? Select 4 units...get 5-1. Deselect and reselect in a different order and get 3-1. Same situation, different issue...how does adding an 'AT' unit (for example) to an attack lower the odds? Adding another unit that is not in a weakened state, and in itself had an attack value should not lower the odds of the attack. Also, why when I use artillery at night, it appears to do absolutely nothing. How bizarre.
- OMG, how did I almost forget! Many people have said 'this is NOT a card game.' It is 100% a card game! The overall scenario has cards, every leader you command has cards, in a campaign you have A LOT of cards you have to keep track of.
It really destroys the flow of the game. You have to spend way-to-many points on 'recon', even when you're right next to the enemy. Any why does the identity of an enemy unit suddenly go to '?' right after I shoot at it?
I could go on further, but I don't want to make this a 'War & Peace'. I simply wanted to justify my opinion. As someone else noted, if your a fan of the genre, then wait for a deep-discount. Or go find one of the old SSG games (Battles in Normandy?) that has the Ardennes game included with it. It's simplistic but a ton of fun just the same. Take care.

This is painful to say, but I don't recommend. It's a beautiful game, with a good UI and awesome details and history. However, the AI is DOA to the point that it is almost a given to have a major victory in every game. The AI just can't stop moving units around, making it impossible for it to hold key points on the map, and it is constantly exposing units to destruction by putting them in pointless positions. While the wall of units the AI throws at you makes it difficult to match historical gains, this is more than made up for by the massive losses caused by this, and the sudden abandonment of key positions for no apparent reason.

This is where the scale of the game becomes a problem - if it was less detailed and took less time to play, it could still be fun, or conceivably played with another human. As it is, whipping up on the AI is a low fun:time payoff, and the learning curve and time commitment is too high for any players I know.

I really wish that the effort spent on these massive computer wargames would be directed at implementing a more manageable ruleset (e.g. Simonitch 19XX) that would be faster to play, and have a reasonable chance of having an AI be decent. I had to read the rulebook for this one multiple times to grok how it works, and even then you don't really know how supply, movement, and combat will precisely work, but you can manage. Imagine this in a boardgame - I always know exactly how far something can move and whether or not it will be in supply when it gets there.

Considering the whole series, I think AI has generally gotten worse as the games have become more complicated - Poland and France were quite difficult to win, while Stalingrad and Ardennes became easy by just allowing the AI to destroy itself. Watching what the AI does on it's turn, I wonder how much the new concept of intercept fire has hurt it; it really pays in this game to not move for the sake of moving - you lose fortiications, you burn supplies, you lose vigor/readiness, and you get shot at. When you move with purpose to an objective, it's necessary to take these hits, but the AI can't seem to make balanced decisions about this - it really needs to be way more biased to hold objectives, esp. in scenarios where it is on the strategic defensive.

TLDR: Pass this by unless it's on sale.

I was looking forward to this game but cannot recommend it. I play a lot of my games offline and so my hours do not reflect the actual time I've spent trying to get a grip on the workings of this game.

Clunky UI, difficult to understand interface, and impossible to actually know which sub-units are which because they are all named the same. Want to mix a specific Battalion or Regiment into a Kampfgruppe? Good luck figuring out which of your 4 like named battalions or Regiments to use. The idea of having to click on a damn counter and look at combat values every time (which will change over the course of the game) to try and help figure it out which unit is which is just lazy-ness and poor thinking on the designers' part. Some of the scenarios have hundreds of units; try keeping that all straight in your head, then add in your opponent's units (and with fog of war, it becomes impossible to tell which of your opponents units you've fought and possibly damaged vs which haven't - because afterall, if I've weakened an enemy unit I'd like to know which one it is so I can continue to work on it vs have to just guess - really piss poor concept there, dev).

It is easier to use the NATO symbols for counters since the graphical unit pics vary between units to the point where sure, they are nice pics but you have to click on every counter to see what unit is what - and even then it doesn't give a specific unit designation (see above).

There is so much hard data available on the Battle of the Bulge, there should be no reason to have generic figures for units; it has to be one of the most studied battles in recent western history, it is irksome to see shortcuts.

Best to wait for it to go on sale, although I've had the title for a couple months now and only played a handful of times.

The reason I buy all these Decisive Campaigns games is because they aren't by Gary Grigsby.

This, however, is the worst of the DC series. Tedious, scale-confused and unrealistic.

The game has some very interesting features.

But the NATO map symbols using the standard Infantry symbol for regimental artillery is a game-breaker for me. The scenario editor was too wonky to mess with.

Devs -

Actually the reason is that all the units belonging to the same regiment get the nato counter of their regiment type.

The devs are aware of using the wrong NATO symbol, which is a limitation of how the scenario was designed by placing all the battalions within the same "Model Group" - which is further restricted by the editor to using the same NATO Map Symbol for all units within the same "Model Group".

The devs could have fixed this in at least 2 ways:
1. Allow units within the same "Model Group" to have their own NATO Map Symbol.
2. Redesign that part of the scenario and move the Artillery to its own "Model Group" so it can have the correct NATO Map Symbol.

Whatever is going on, the shortcoming is entirely as a result of the game implementation that was willfully ignored by the devs - I can only suspect in the hopes that players would not notice.

If you can get past all this, then you will probably enjoy the game.

There is no tutorial... how in the hell am I suppose to figure this ♥♥♥♥ out if I don't know the game at all? this game gave me anxiety by just loading in a scenario, let alone playing it!

While I like Vic design games , this one doesn't have any beta branch in Steam over a month. I don't recommend Steam version of this game.

Garbage game with almost no situational awareness. Units vaporize during AI turn and no real way of easily keeping track, even while watching the move. Access the manual through the game. Leave manual open. Come back later and try to start game and it says it's already running. Eventually figure out that the manual is causing the problem. Close it. Contact Steam for a refund. They say I've played 15 hours. How? Because the stupid manual was open overnight. No refund. Garbage game. Awesome!