PDA

View Full Version : AADD Some rules changes to add more historical accuracy


Peter Busch
09-30-2004, 10:47 AM
I have solo playtested the changes outlined below a couple of times so far, and they seem to work pretty well. O.K., here goes.

1. No targeted attacks! If there’s one rule I’ve come to dislike above all others in this game it's the targeted attack. My opposition to targeting is that it makes the firing unit too powerful, especially because the targeted unit cannot fire back defensively. This means that tank and artillery units will be quickly eliminated from the game, leaving only infantry to fight battles. The Allied artillery and tank units in beachhead boxes are almost always going to get wiped on turn one by blockhouse fire, bombers will almost always target an Axis tank unit, etc. The Allies have a hard enough time getting ashore and staying there as it is without the additional burden of landing with no artillery or tank support. In future I’m only going to play the game without targeted attacks of any kind.

2. Tactics Card #2 “V-2 Rocket Strike” – The effect of this card is historically wrong for two reasons: the first V-2 strikes did not begin until early September 1944, well after the Normandy campaign was over; and the military effect of V-2s (and V-1s) was negligible if not non-existent – the real victims of the German vengeance weapons were civilians. In addition, this tactics card has nothing to do with the order card that either precedes or follows it, whereas almost all the other tactics cards do relate to an associated order card.

My suggestion is to change this card to: “Axis Attacks Invasion Force. Roll three dice. Each roll of 1 eliminates from play one Allied Naval Bombardment die.”

This is a much more historically likely effect as well as being directly related to the order card preceding it. The Germans did, in fact, deploy mines, E-boats, one-man subs, and air attacks (including attacks using radio-guided bombs) against the Allied invasion force. None of these proved particularly effective but they could have.

3. Order Card #4 “Antiaircraft Fire: Fighters” – The effect of eliminating an Allied fighter unit from play is wildly out of proportion to the actual number of aircraft involved in the campaign and lost to ground fire. There were 5,000 Allied fighters assigned to the Normandy invasion. With eight fighter units in the game this equates to a scale of 625 fighters per unit. On D-Day itself a little over 100 fighters were lost to enemy AA fire, yet in the game it’s possible to shoot down many more hundreds if not thousands of Allied fighters in a single turn! As they say down south, “That dawg won’t hunt”.

Therefore, I suggest that AA hits on Allied fighters not eliminate the unit from play but rather force it to abort its mission and return to its airfield. If you really insist upon inflicting casualties, then I’d go for letting the Axis player combine two hits made by artillery in the same zone into a “kill”, which would eliminate one fighter patrolling over that zone.

4. Tactics Card #4 “Fireball from Above” – Speaking of cards who’s effect is wildly out of proportion, this one has to take top prize! We’re supposed to accept that hundreds of Allied fighters drop like so many quail from the sky right on top of a friendly unit in such a way as to make it combat ineffective?! The entire concept strikes me as World War II as it was in the comic books.

In concert with the AA fire rule change posted above, change this card to “Concentrated AA Fire. Choose one fighter that was aborted by artillery fire this phase. That fighter is now eliminated from play.”

5. Order Card #6 “AA Fire: Bombers” – As with fighters, a hit does not eliminate a bomber but rather damages it so that it cannot be deployed from its airfield on the next turn. Flip the bomber upside down to indicate that it cannot fly on the next turn. Again, if you want blood, count two AA hits in the same zone as a kill.

6. Fortune Card #7 “Bombers Return” – Change so that a roll of 1 allows a flipped bomber to be immediately turned right side up or an eliminated bomber to be returned to play. A roll of 6 allows the Axis player to flip one bomber or eliminate a bomber already flipped from AA fire.

7. Tactics Card #7 “Flooding the Lowlands” – The way this card works now, the Axis player can prevent an entire Allied beachhead box from landing, thus stalling the Allied invasion on turn one. This not only didn’t happen but it’s far too potent a tactic for the Axis player. Change the card to read: “Choose a coastal zone. No Allies land units can move _out of_ that zone in the next phase”. In this way the Axis can’t stop a landing but they can slow down an advance through a weak spot in their line. By-the-by, it would have been nice if the game components had included a marker piece labeled “Flooded” to help remind players which zone is affected; there certainly was room on the same sheet as the turn marker to do this.

8. Order Card #10 “Axis Reinforcements” – A critical failure of the Germans on D-Day and for several days, even weeks, thereafter was the refusal of Hitler and the German high command to accept that Normandy was the real invasion site and not a diversion for a main landing at the Pas de Calais. As such, valuable time was lost before powerful German divisions arrived in the landing area. To represent this, on turn one the Axis player only rolls one die each for Rennes/Chartres and Rouen/Chartres. From turn two onward the Axis player gets to roll the normal two dice each.

9. Tactics Card #15 “German Convoy” – Make this card #16 and place “Volunteers from the Home Front” as #15. Change the wording on the card to “German _Night_ Convoy. Axis land units from one Axis-controlled zone may move to any other zone. They must remain together as a group, passing only through Axis-controlled zones. If they enter a non Axis-controlled zone they must stop. The maximum limit of eight units per zone must be observed at all times during the move.

This tactic now takes place after fighters have returned to their airfields, hence the “night” appellation. Historically, after several days of hard lessons about the effectiveness and power of Allied air attacks on convoys moving during the daytime, the Germans eventually switched to making major troop movements under cover of darkness.

10. Fortune Cards: I have come to the conclusion that the Fortune cards just add too much of a random element into the game. As others have noted in their posts before me, Fortune cards make it really difficult to plan a strategy because one is always reacting to the events of the cards. My personal preference is that event cards should work as an adjunct to overall game strategy, not drive it.

I think the following change will create some interesting decision-making for all players: Fortune cards should be shuffled separately, then dealt out equally to both sides –eight for Allies, eight for Axis. If playing a three-player game, then the U.S. player and British Player get four cards each. At the beginning of the order phase matching the Fortune card’s number the player holding the Fortune card for that phase may elect to play it. Now here’s the fun part. The player of the card can either choose to pick one of the two events on the card and it takes effect immediately, but the card is then discarded from play; or the player can roll a die to get a random result, but he gets to keep the card in his hand to use again on later turns! Each turn he still has the card he can elect to either choose an effect and discard the card or roll for a random event and hold onto the card to use again. The only exception to choosing to keep the card is Fortune Card #1 “Airborne Assault”. Whomever plays this card must pick a result and then discard the card; he can’t keep it.

Well, there you have it. That’s my two cents (or maybe a nickel) worth. I certainly welcome constructive comments, especially from anyone who’s tried playing with any of my suggested changes.

series
09-30-2004, 12:01 PM
But if blockhouses do not get targeted attacks, they will only kill infantry, making their 2 round existance even less meaningless.

elbowmaster
10-01-2004, 12:17 PM
good thoughts peter...!!


we too, find some of the card names as silly...

-cheers

-elbowmaster

DocD
10-02-2004, 12:31 PM
Yeah, makes sense to me.

Sasnak
10-03-2004, 06:06 AM
7. Tactics Card #7 “Flooding the Lowlands” – The way this card works now, the Axis player can prevent an entire Allied beachhead box from landing, thus stalling the Allied invasion on turn one. This not only didn’t happen but it’s far too potent a tactic for the Axis player. Change the card to read: “Choose a coastal zone. No Allies land units can move _out of_ that zone in the next phase”. In this way the Axis can’t stop a landing but they can slow down an advance through a weak spot in their line. By-the-by, it would have been nice if the game components had included a marker piece labeled “Flooded” to help remind players which zone is affected; there certainly was room on the same sheet as the turn marker to do this.

I may be wrong here, but I think you have been playing this incorrectly judging from some of your above comments.

The allies cannot move through the zone in their MOVEMENT phase. It DOES NOT mean that they cannot land in the zone during the LANDING phase, which FOLLOWS the movement phase.

Also, historically, the Germans DID flood much of the Normandy area.

I think you have many fine suggestions that would improve the historical accuarcy of the game. Your comments concerning the V2 rocket strikes and fireball from above tactics cards are right-on and points well taken. Your comments were well made and historically grounded.

Having said that, I think you are mixing apples and oranges. A game like A&A D-Day being 'historically accurate' is kinda like saying that watching some thing on the history channel can replace reading a book about the same subject from the library.

To me, anyway, A&A D-Day is a very enjoyable crap-shoot beer & pretzles game that has tried to base itself very loosley on an historical battle. There is no mention that I can recall that tries to equate individual pieces to actual numbers of men and material, no mention even of a time reference to how long a 'turn' really is.

By adding some of your rules I think you may wind up adversly affecting the play balance. Your reasoning is quite correct concerning the allied fighters and bombers. But by removing the possibility of destroying those units (2 aa hits in the same zone? I wish!) you really swing things in favor of the allies. Your reasoning regarding the reduced arrival of German reinforcements is also historically correct. This however greatly puts the Germans at a disadvantage early on - the possibility of only receiving one unit will put them on their heels possibly for the rest of the game.

I don't mean to be critical of your suggestions, like I said I think you did a good job of using historical facts to help add more realism to the game. I just think that doing so changes what the game is and how it plays too much. If you really want historical realism in a game, then there really isn'y any A&A game that fits that bill. I think they are all abstract and meant more for the enjoyment of a more casual audience than that of the truly historical gamer.

Peter Busch
10-06-2004, 06:58 PM
Well, I wish you were right regarding the rule interpretation of the "Flooding the Lowlands" card, but in fact I sent a question to AH/WotC regarding this.

My Q: Can you use "Flooding the Lowlands" on a landing beach zone (e.g., Omaha Beach) if there are no Allies land units currently in the zone but there are Allies land units waiting to land in the beachhead box offshore?

Their A: Yes, you can do this. That is exactly what it is for really - to keep Allies in the beachhead boxes, and out of your territory!

This clearly states that the card does what I don't think it should do.

I agree with you that the Germans did flood lowlands areas, especially those behind Utah beach and around the Cherbourg peninsula. However, this flooding did not stop the U.S. forces from landing and making a beachhead, but rather slowed their advance inland for the first few days. Which matches what my suggested change entails.

As an addition to my suggestions about AA guns vs. Allied aircraft, after playing a couple more games over this past weekend, I think it would be a good idea to allow Axis AA fire from each artillery unit against each Allied fighter or bomber in the zone. So, if you've got four artillery in a zone that's four shots (one from each arty unit) on each fighter. This would essentially give AA fire a firepower approximating the firepower of patroling fighters.

Your points about A&A: D-Day not being a rigorous historical simulation are well taken, and I do not disagree with you. The gist of my post is that with a few minor changes and a little effort on the part of the company, they could have imparted some additional accuracy and history to the game without unduly burdening its playability or complexity. IMHO, just because a beer & pretzel-style game's rules are simple and straightforward doesn't mean that one should ignore (or worse, distort) history. If someone buys A&A: D-Day, plays it, then decides to do some reading to explore and further their knowledge of the event, shouldn't what they read in even a fairly general history of the Normandy campaign match what options and events are likely to occur in the game? The more divergent a purportedly historical game deviates from history, the more one must ask the question: why bother claiming it's based on an actual event (other than for crass merchandising reasons)? Why not just set the game in a sci-fi or fantasy-based world if you're going to play fast and loose with history anyway?

My feedback isn’t intended to indicate that I don’t appreciate the efforts of those who worked so hard to produce this game. Quite the contrary, if I thought the game was a piece of crap I wouldn’t have bothered spending so much time thinking about these changes and then taking the time to write them down.

Ultimately any game is what _you_ want it to be, because after you buy it, it’s your game. If you want to play by rules other than what come with the game that’s your prerogative (assuming you can find a willing partner, or else play your rules solo). I mean, if you want to include a rule for German use of an A-bomb on Omaha beach then go right ahead. However, my suggested changes are geared towards fine tuning the historicity and play balance of a game that’s fun to play but which falls just a bit short of being a great game. A&A D-Day certainly isn’t meant to be a rigorously accurate simulation of the Normandy campaign, but I do feel that with a little effort such as I’ve outlined above one can at least move a little closer to accuracy without changing the game out of recognition or sacrificing playability.

Drax Kramer
10-07-2004, 01:08 AM
Anyone concerned about the "historical effect" in A&A: D-Day should scrap Tactics deck all together. I mean, V-2 rockets in June? Fighter group shot down and destroying an armored brigade at the impact? Artillery that can shoot at extended ranges only once in the course of a month? Fine tuning Tactics cards is a waste of the time.

Regarding the number of shots artillery should take on fighters you have to ask yourself what effect you want to achieve. Statistics are known so you can test the effects of your rule in advance and historical impact of tactical air forces is known as well. So the question is which model better reflects the actual history and historical concerns of German commanders. As far as I am concerned, rules as written work just fine in this aspect.

My complaints are mostly centered around OOB which is incomplete since some units from both sides that historically fought for the victory cities aren't present in the game. I simply don't like the the map emptied of units in last few turns.


Drax

Caractacus
10-07-2004, 02:31 AM
Yeah, Drax, I've had something to say on the matter of the drying up of reinforcements for the Allies. It applies to the Germans, too, of course - though perhaps there are arguments that might suggest they could run out of troops sooner: Hitler's uncertainty that the D-Day landings were THE landing and holding back of troops for a possible defence of the more northerly coastline.

That said, if the Allies were looking frail, I'm sure more troops would have been funnelled in to finish them off/push them out Dunkirk-style. If the Allies were looking powerful, they would have husbanded their resources and pulled back - as they did.

I just find it incredible that even if the German defenders are on the ropes, the Allies just stop sending men and materiél over - I mean, if the fighting is raging around St Lô, the Germans can leave 1 Inf in the other two cities and converge on the action. In reality, there would have been a steady stream of reinforcements.

Of course, these reinforcements would unbalance the game, but I'd have thought that we could also have had (or instead) a system that penalises the Allies for excessive casualties. That would fit logically with reality, since high needlessly high casualty rates would limit the ability of the Allies to push swiftly inland, affect morale and cause a political storm at home.

Empty board finale = BAD.

Sasnak
10-07-2004, 11:00 AM
I am sure I am being dense and hardheaded, but is that how you phrased your question regarding the 'flooding of the lowlands' card when you asked AH/WOC?

You can of course PLAY the card under those circumstances; there are no allied units in the zone if they are waiting to land - a landing zone is seperate from the land zones - two totally different things.

Again, that would merely mean that the allies cannot MOVE through that zone during PHASE 08 ALLIES MOVE. The LANDING comes during PHASE 10 ALLIES LAND. The 'Flooding the Lowlands' card (a phase 07 card) states it is in effect during the NEXT PHASE which is PHASE 08.

Who exactly answered your question? If they are right then there is a really big mistake in the phrasing of that tactics card. It also means that out of all the games I have played (many!) none of them were played correctly. Maybe I'm just dumb and don't really understand the idea of phases in the game.

I opened a new thread asking the question. Hopefully Mike Selinker will answer it. Again, I know, I'm probably being overly bullheaded and stupid about this.

And about adding the historical rule changes, I wasn't being critical and hope I didn't sound it. I was merely adding my two cents in concerning my views on the game. There have been lots of posts criticizing the game simply because it IS so historically inaccurate. Again, to me its hard to get angry (not saying you are, just some others) with a game or its developers who took something that was inheritantly abstract and strategic (A&A and its other iterations) and turned it into something abstract and tactical.

All that being said though, you make good points about the fact that with a little more effort, the game could have been more historically accurate. Your changes would help to make it so. Sometimes I think the developers came up with play-balancing concepts and ideas first and then tried (rather unsuccessfully in some cases - fireball from above and V2 rocket strikes - come on now really!) to give them meaningful text explanations. I'd almost go as far as to say they were dumbing things down trying to put the right 'buzz' words into the game. "Hey guys, we've got x number of tactics cards for the allies, now we need to come up with some for the axis! Let's mention V2 rockets!"

If they were trying to be devotedly accurate I'd say they did a fair job at best and that's being generous. If they were trying to make a fun game that's easy to play I'd say they hit the ball out of the park.

brazzio
10-12-2004, 11:04 AM
I have the d-day edition A&A and i agree that the V-2's and having hardly any units on the board at the end of the game is a little unrealistic. But the game was meant not to be 100% accurate to history or then wats the points of playing. In this game the point of it is to try and change history. It would have been nice to see it very accurate but then it probably would have made it to much one sided.

boylermaker
10-16-2004, 02:01 PM
1. I like targeted attacks. The allies in my game don't have any problem getting ashore at all.

2. As you have noticed, many of the tactics cards aren't actually tactics per se, merely one-time-bonuses. Same here. Change the name to "Submarine Attack" if it pleases you.

3. Not killing fighters is a bad idea-the allies would get a huge advantage.

4. See 2

5. This is okay, but starts you down the slippery slope to not killing fighters.

6. See 6

7. Does tactics card 7's flooding prevent the Allies from coming ashore in that zone?
No. It only applies to movement on the next order card.
Straight from the FAQ. I would guess you got some Magic guy who didn't understand the question.

8. The German player IS Hitler. He can change his mind.

9. I like this one: it is much better than the original convoy, which is worthless.

10. Weird. It might work, but I'll never know.

Just a thought: historicality is nice, but not at the expense of balance. After all, in a truly accurate game, the allies win all the time.

Enderson
11-08-2004, 06:30 AM
9. Tactics Card #15 “German Convoy” – Make this card #16 and place “Volunteers from the Home Front” as #15. Change the wording on the card to “German _Night_ Convoy. Axis land units from one Axis-controlled zone may move to any other zone. They must remain together as a group, passing only through Axis-controlled zones. If they enter a non Axis-controlled zone they must stop. The maximum limit of eight units per zone must be observed at all times during the move.

I have played with this rule in the past and it adds a hint of realism to the game. As you said, the Germans did finnaly fiqure out not to move around in daylight.

Keep up the good work!

Enderson~.

AxisRoll
12-27-2004, 10:06 PM
Just play the game as the rules have sent them.

elbowmaster
12-28-2004, 09:58 AM
Just play the game as the rules have sent them.


now thats an oxymoron, considering your using something other than out of the box rules for revised...

but i guess its one way to get your posting numbers up...commenting negatively on some actually good thoughts...

Midgard Eagle
12-31-2004, 08:58 PM
Targetted attacks: If I remember correctly, fighters can make targetted attacks, right? If so, it's not unrealistic at all. Fighters did strafe targets using cannon and guns and very actually pretty accurate.

AxisRoll
12-31-2004, 11:54 PM
ok, it was a drunken stuper i was in then, and maybe now as well.

boylermaker
01-11-2005, 12:01 PM
AxisRoll, think outside the box. You're such a pessimist :D