Preliminary Review: A Time For Trumpets [GMT Games, 2020]

Preliminary Review: A Time For Trumpets [GMT Games, 2020]
Designer: Bruno Sinigaglio

[@kevinalbertina136]

Thanks for the video. I think you have confirmed what I already suspected...this is probably too much game for me at this point in my gaming life.

[@jeffwesevich1239]

I'm looking forward to the Last Blitzkrieg comparison vid.

[@WiseGuyHistory]

Working on it now, might have it up in about 12 hours or so...

[@phildraper3401]

Very useful review, particularly the comments regarding the practicalities of play and the benefits of VASSAL. Really looking forward to your comparison video, keep up the great content.

[@WiseGuyHistory]

Thanks Phil; comparison video will hopefully be up in about 24 hours.

[@chrisridley4840]

your usual outstanding set of videos you produce when covering a game Thank you As to the game itself as i play 90% of my games solo i would not be worried by the usa players down time there are many things i like in the game and you can tell this is a real labour of love for the designer but i think i will pass untill the second printing comes out with all the errata cleaned up as i'm just not prepared to print out so much Oh well many more fish in sea roll on the release of Pacific War and 1985 Sacred Oil

[@EricBerinson]

Sounds like Bruno has been meticulous in providing rules detail enforcing formation command and control. As you indicate, this is his chosen vehicle to maintain realistic, minimal cross formation “mixing.” A key question is whether that detail in your opinion inhibits the gamers freedom, i.e. the ability to, even early on, alter the pre-determined historical path? Put another way, are we “pushed” toward an amazing historical Bulge replay, or is their freedom to explore “What If” Bulge alternatives? I am also fascinated by the opportunity to see artillery and air directly represented, versus the alternative of their greater abstraction. These 2 elements played critical roles in the Ardennes… the opportunity to apply these specific units and their interplay with ground forces sounds like desired (and hopefully enjoyable) detail that adds to gamer education of their importance / role / application. Do you agree, or do you feel either or both of these elements are best left to a greater degree of abstraction? Do you concur game administration is rarely “fun?” Someone like Bruno has accomplished so much that he has forgotten more about game design than I’ll ever know… But it sounds like a challenge in enjoying ATFT might include analyzing the components, charts and tables to see if creative administrative short cuts might be possible (one example is the introduction of the HQ cards in LB). Easing administrative burden without changing design might then speed up game play too. Of course finding those opportunities is the challenge! I saw your unboxing. Component quality appears top notch. Your comments suggest the rules are easily followed… It did sound like inevitable corrections might be accompanied by practical “rules condensing” to reduce redundancy? And I’ll be curious to hear about any further comments you have regarding game quality? Your suggestion regarding Vassal use is understandable. Perhaps you are developing a wish list of where the software might improve game administration, execution and enjoyment? Like many monsters, it is sometimes unfair to call it a “game.” This is a military simulation where you’ve made it sound like Bruno and his team have packed enormous research into an alternate and fascinating way to be educated about the combat, at battalion level, that occurred at the Bulge! For that alone it sounds like it carries a critical torch for exploring replays of what happened in the Ardennes in December of ‘44. In listening to your excellent preliminary review (Thank You!), I’ll be curious to hear your reply to my questions above, and I’ll understand if you choose to delay your answers till you compare ATFT with LB ;)

[@WiseGuyHistory]

Great questions Eric; I could probably go on for a while but hopefully this addresses them succinctly. Most of the restrictions revolve around when a unit becomes Active [ie. timing]; once units in a division are active, you can move them relatively freely within the respective armies Area of Operations. This means that, if you want to shift the 2nd Pz Div to the southern edge of 5th Pz Armies Area of Operations, you can do that. If you want to try to get them across the Clerf south of Clervaux, you can do that, or if you want to drive them far north of that Area of Operations, you can do that [the only limits here are the army Area of Operations, and what they can practically do with movement allowances and restrictions. Typically, you're working within that historical area of divisional operations simply because that's where they start, and that's where they want to push for maximum advantage. So, in short, you have a LOT of freedom once those units become active, and for the most part the timing of their 'activity' reflects historical circumstances [much like the arrival of reinforcements on a certain turn, except these units start on the map]. The choices you make about artillery are fascinating. I've only played with units on the map [no Arty parks yet] and it's a great aspect of the game. The US in particular, with fewer artillery early on, has to be very careful with their use of artillery, and during German movement, targeting US field artillery parked too close to the front is a TOP priority. The denial of just 4 Artillery CFs can be critical! Regarding air units, I love the way they represent interdiction/strafing via disruption of a unit and interdiction in an area; from what I've read of airpower, it seems the most accurate representation of their role and is a fascinating aspect of gameplay. The 'fun' factor is interesting. To be blunt, yes, the game isn't that 'fun' or 'exciting', and there are relatively few 'tense' moments [eg. perhaps the attacks on important towns or bridge crossing qualify, but most other combats don't]. Because combat resolution is a relatively slow process, often involving adding up various factors, modifiers, and applying column shifts, it slows things down, and I'm often double and triple checking my results which reduces the tension and excitement. Instead, it is 'fascinating' and 'interesting'. I keep returning to play different scenarios [and once started want to keep playing] because it's like a very deep puzzle gradually being built before me, and I want to see how it all fits together. In terms of how the admin burden could be eased, I don't think it's possible without simplifying/changing the rules. It's a heavy and complex game and I think we just accept that administration as part of it. The Artillery Parks might help, but there's a bit of a thematic sacrifice there. In terms of managing this, I don't think I'll ever play my physical copy again simply because it's very difficult to navigate through the stacks. In contrast, vassal makes this a lot easier and speeds up my gameplay by about 100% [you can hover over a hex to highlight the component units, and easily use keyboard shortcuts to place various counters]. If the rules were condensed they could be re-written in about 30 pages, but then you'd be sacrificing ease of reference. Whenever I want to find something it's pretty easy to search the PDF and find it [and I think the rules were designed with that 'reference' idea in mind]. So, despite the fact that 'In comms, In supply, and Active' is repeated for each type of construction, it's good to know if I want to specifically check the IP6 requirements that all that information will be in that specific section. In other words, it seems the rulebook was designed as a book to be consulted during play [which is does well], rather than to ease the introduction to the system [which is a bit more difficult]. Beyond, quality is outstanding. The counters are thick and chunky and I talk a little more about that in my comparison video [coming soon].

[@EricBerinson]

Thanks for the thorough reply! Great to hear the simulation does not inhibit “what if” scenarios, and exciting to hear both artillery and air representation in ATFT “are fascinating… and seems the most accurate representation of their role” respectively. One spot where you relieved some anxiety I consumed was associated with the “fun factor.” Per your response, I am satisfied with “fascinating and interesting” as a metaphor for fun! So thanks for that, it not only helps justify the needed “administrivia,” but points out its potential importance to help understand “the very deep puzzle… to see how it all fits together!” I am torn by your comments “I don’t think I’ll ever Play my physical copy again… Vassal… speeds up my gameplay about 100%.” As a former software developer I am both pleased and intrigued by what Vassal can accomplish. But (admittedly a dichotomy here) as an old school gamer enjoying the tactile nature of boards and pieces, I have been reluctant to embrace Vassal. Perhaps where my 2 worlds here could merge would be exploring every way Vassal can virtualize the paper/cardboard experience. Simultaneously, I am wondering about the challenge of looking at how Vassal can additionally automate some of the required administration you’ve explained, without sacrificing those learning elements that come with “doing.” I completely understand what you’ve communicated regarding the rules, aka their clear need to be both an easy reference as well as a conceptual introduction. Makes perfect sense. Regarding game quality, your plans to further explore ATFT exclusively via Vassal not only make sense but have me questioning my own desire for quality components and aesthetics. This is where I am perhaps being drawn to a need to embrace Vassal to explore merging the two. I think you’ve convinced me to acquire a copy of ATFT… I am intrigued by its potential place as a unique historical training artifact. This has also provided me with food for thought regarding my position with Vassal… ATFT could be my catalyst to establish greater traction there. Thank you not only for your reply but especially for your continued efforts here! I am a fan and will continue to enjoy your work.

[@WilliamBrothers]

I played the Bastogne scenario while learning the game. I share the same sentiments as you point out about the game. I feel like its a very thorough study game engine but there are some rules to be aware of as i made some mistakes, which is expected with any first game. Very advanced as a wargame but a very good hands on way of learning the details of the battle. I really enjoy this one

[@justintabatabai8063]

Great breakdown. Thank you

[@andreweast410]

Omg.. mega-complicated.. I think I'd end up rolling the dice to knock over the counters to see who wins....

[@palibrae]

Probably the best improvement would be to set up an "Orders & Restrictions" chart for each major formation on a separate sheet. In this way the team member commanding the formation need only concern himself with a short list of rules exceptions pertaining to his operations. You mention that there is not much movement and combat in a 6 hour turn. This goes back to the strong emphasis on simulation accuracy. The "slow grind" is what actually happened on the ground and is how the commanders would have seen their battle maps over a very limited period of time. The game is so detailed that a designer would be tempted to abstract out many little aspects of the historical situation in the interests of smoother, faster play. But that would defeat the overall purpose, wouldn't it? This is the kind of game that rewards, indeed requires, a solid mastery of the system before tackling a big scenario. You will have to take it easy.

[@kennethkloby2726]

Hi Nathan, Thanks for the time and effort you put into this game. I think there are numerous corrections which would have to be incorporated into it before I spent the money on it, even so I would never find anyone to play it with. I have been playing Bulge games and reading about the BoB for 55 years, if GMT were to clean it up to my satisfaction I would buy it in a heartbeat. I would love to go through it solo and digest all the detail the designer put into it, this "game" might actually be one of the best resources on the battle. I have the space and I have the time and even if it took me a year to go through it I know it would be a rewarding experience for me. IMO the initial enthusiasm has been swamped by the effort involved, which was foreseeable, so I doubt we'll see a 2nd ed.; however, maybe we'll see an update kit. Hitler's Last Gamble by Compass should be available in several months, maybe it will be an alternative. For now I'm sticking with Bitter Woods, it may not be as detailed as ATfT or HLG but it's a great game and it's playable...solo too. Thanks again and good luck, Ken.

[@WiseGuyHistory]

Thanks Kenneth. Yeah I don't think I'd want to play ATFT with another player; it's a wonderful solo game, but, particularly in the early scenarios, the downtime for the US player would occasionally run to several hours, and even on their turn they're doing relatively little.

[@landsurfer66]

I appreciate this video and the game looks great, but I too am a diehard Bitter Woods player.

[@kennethkloby2726]

@@WiseGuyHistory good point, hadn't thought about that

[@kennethkloby2726]

@@landsurfer66 Hi, You should watch Steven Zaloga's KZbin presentation "Smashing Hitler's Panzers". Essentially his research showed the 12th SS was a green unit during the Bulge, so maybe the division doesn't warrant a 5 ER in Bitter Woods. Good Luck.

[@justinb7256]

Nice video Nathan. My copy of ATfT arrived last week and watching this video and your comparison with Last Blitzkrieg , I kinda wish I had bought the latter....

[@WiseGuyHistory]

I think they're both amazing games J B, but in very different ways. Just focus on those 4 play aids and read the fine print! :-D

[@stevebohlin7245]

Combat is a tedious affair much of the time. Use with the Bitter Woods Rules. US is way too well prepared to shut the Germans down early.

[@HistoricalConflict]

I was wondering why you shifted to Vassal near the end ...makes sense

[@WiseGuyHistory]

Yeah vassal sped up my gameplay by about 100%. A lot of that increase comes from the ease in searching through my artillery, making adjustments to counters [eg. placing and removing 'Fired' markers], and finding and placing reinforcements and other administrative counters.

[@myfilm18]

Have you downloaded the latest rules (Living Rules Bundle) from the GMT website?

[@WiseGuyHistory]

Yeah I used all those revised rules/setups.

[@charlesstubbs385]

Bruno Great review as usual. I have many GMT games and other publishers. Are you in Oz?

[@WiseGuyHistory]

Yeah mate I'm in NSW, you too?

[@charlesstubbs385]

I'm in Brisbane

[@thegrogshed]

I wanted this game until your comments about the intricacies of the movement system. I like a bit of chrome but this system sounds a bit more involved than I can handle. I would probably forget 90% of the movement details and have to refer to the rules all the time.

[@pm71241]

Interesting...l actually asked on CSW and Bruno answered that the game was explicitly designed for team play. I wonder how that affects the feeling of a grind.

[@WiseGuyHistory]

Yeah apparently it works well 3v3 where you have a different player controlling each of the three German armies, taking their army activations simultaneously. I still can't imagine that being much fun for the US side though...

[@pm71241]

@@WiseGuyHistory Well ... no Bulge game is fun for the American player during the first few turns. ;-) A lot of games have this property of one side having all the fun initially - and the other having it in the end. "Empire of the Sun" comes to mind.

[@WiseGuyHistory]

@@pm71241 Yeah the problem here is those first few turns [at least if you're playing the early scenarios] take about 20+ hours. I want to reiterate that it's great solo, but that's a lot of time sitting around waiting for reinforcements to arrive.

[@pm71241]

@@WiseGuyHistory Hmm... The first 20 hours of WiF is not exactly high on reinforcements for the Allies either.

[@crisop-jm8cz]

@@WiseGuyHistory Why not try a two, or three, player game where each player controls a German Army (and alternate the third), and then with the switch to the US player turn, take the US units in the opposite German players sector. I don't know, might not be doable or might be just dumb, but just a thought.

[@mrV69]

How’s this game compared to DG: Wacht Am Rhein, the Battle of the Bulge?

[@WiseGuyHistory]

Similar complexity, but I found this easier to learn. It proceeds at a slower pace, and feels more granular in detail.

[@mrV69]

@@WiseGuyHistory it sounds like Wacht am Rhein is easy is learn. Thank you.

[@WiseGuyHistory]

I struggled with the Wacht am Rhein rules [I did a few videos on it], whereas ATFT is very procedural and easier to grasp.

[@mrV69]

@@WiseGuyHistory ohhh it seems a lot of rules in ATFT

[@WiseGuyHistory]

Yeah but there's a lot of repetition, and it's designed for easy consultation. Have you seen my primer videos on ATFT?