Just wondering if anyone else has the same feeling as me about the Bulge (it's not a problem with the game). Don't you find the results depressingly accurate, almost whichever historical battle you fight? That is, if you play the germans then you can make some initial ground, achieve objectives etc, but basically the Yanks are coming, and coming in force, and there's no way you're going to win really (playing on realistic orders delay with options unchanged). If you fiddle with the supply and reinforcements you can sometimes win, sometimes win easily, but that's not the historical set up. If you play the Yanks then you're going to take a bit of a bashing, initially, have to fall back etc (a couple of attacking scenarios aside), but basically you're waiting for all that materiel to arrive, and when it does you're going to recover quite well. Isn't there a depressing predictability about this?
Whereas, a few of the COTA scenarios i really don't know what will happen. the Italian attacks, for example, are, I think, great to play because it really feels it could go either way and - and here's the point - it feels like your decisions might make a difference. for example, I once played Hofen Ho-Down as the Yanks, gave one order only for the entire game, just to see what happened - a defend in situ order to the on map boss - and, no surprise, perhaps, the AI handled it all perfectly and got much the result that the yanks got historically, and that I got if I fiddled around more.
This is one reason I'm really looking forward to the HTTR add-on. Certain scenarios there also have the feel of having different possible outcomes.