Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
20 Posts

D-Day (3rd edition)» Forums » Variants

Subject: Where can Para drop? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Steve
Thailand
flag msg tools
ISTM that the different versions of D-Day changed to rule of "can Para drop into ZOC"?

I learned D-Day with '61 [A or B?]. Para could not drop into ZOC, but could move 3 after they were dropped. I learned the importance of Para screens to let your units retreat and to keep Para from joining with beach invaders.

A later version changed this to say they could drop into ZOC, but never could move after they were dropped.

I suggest a compromise. "Para can move 1 hex after they are dropped. They can be dropped into ZOC, but if they are [because of the confusion of the drop which they don't have time to correct before they are thrust into combat] they lose their ZOC for the purpose of blocking German retreats for the rest of their player turn only (and just to be clear can't move)."

This pretty much makes it impossible to keep Para from joining with beach invaders, but may also let the beach defenders have a retreat route.

BGG readers, please comment to let me know what you think. Please. I promise I will not comment back unless it is clear you didn't understand my rule proposal.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Oh my God They Banned Kenny
Canada
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
I guess I wonder what the motivation is for your proposed rule change.

Just to clarify, IIRC, both '61 and '65 prohibited paras from dropping into a EZoC, but allowed them to move after dropping. Thus para-proofing was a key part of setting up the defense. In '77 this was changed such that paras could drop into a EZoC, but could not move on the turn they dropped. This made para proofing considerably more difficult.

The other changes to paras were that in earlier versions, each para div could drop twice per game. In '77, para divs can drop any number of times, but cannot be replaced.

In terms of commenting, I think your proposed rule change would only partially mitigate the powerful paras from '77. The Allies can often drop multiple paras in a turn, and therefore could block retreat routes (if that was their intention) with multiple units dropped onto different hexes.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve
Thailand
flag msg tools
Since I promised not to comment, I'll just say Thank you.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Oh my God They Banned Kenny
Canada
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
Steve1501 wrote:
Since I promised not to comment, I'll just say Thank you.


Lol. Well, since I apparently didn't 'understand' your motivation for the change perhaps you could comment on that at least (and as for the rest, I am willing to release you from your promise )
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lee Trowbridge
United States
Tennessee
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I agree with Kenny. I think we understand the mechanics of the proposal, but not necessarily the motivation. Are you trying to make the game a little more historically accurate? Or adjusting the substitute the paradrop game mechanic so that it is not quite as powerful?

D-Day, and for that matter all Avalon Hill games of that period, did not do well in getting scales historically correct - distances, unit density, movement rates, etc.

As to whether Paras should have a ZOC when they drop, it makes sense that they should not, as in your proposal. However, at ~17 miles/hex (IIRC), it makes some (historical) sense for NO unit should have a ZOC. For that matter, it also makes historical sense to allow 6 to 8 divisions (more or less, depending on division size) to stack in a single hex. Consider how many divisions were on the beaches at Normandy across what is in the game a 3 to 4 hex front before the breakout; or how many were in the Battle of the Bulge across a three hex front.

Back on topic, it also makes historical sense to allow Paras to drop right on top of enemy units, and never to drop into a hex NOT adjacent to a friendly unit (including other dropped Paras). At the D-Day game scale, the D-Day drops were adjacent to beaches, and in Market-Garden, the drops were the equivalent of dropping a chain of 3 divisions starting at the Allied front line and proceeding through adjacent hexes three deep into the German rear.

Some significant alteration of the game system would be needed to do any of these "more historical" approaches. All that would greatly modify the "standard" AH early 1960s game system, which was not something Avalon Hill would have entertained. Once they had a game system established, nearly all the official alterations (clarifications, but in some cases outright rule changes, also newer editions of the rules) seemed (to me) to be aimed at preserving the game, not achieving historical fidelity.

Nothing stops anyone else from trying to 'fix up' the game, as Kenny did in a very workable mix of the 65 and 77 rules, or as you are doing here and in other recent posts. When you get a modified system crystallized, I will likely set it up and try it out a few times, and look forward to that.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve
Thailand
flag msg tools
E_T_Lee wrote:
I agree with Kenny. I think we understand the mechanics of the proposal, but not necessarily the motivation. Are you trying to make the game a little more historically accurate? Or adjusting the substitute the paradrop game mechanic so that it is not quite as powerful?

D-Day, and for that matter all Avalon Hill games of that period, did not do well in getting scales historically correct - distances, unit density, movement rates, etc.

As to whether Paras should have a ZOC when they drop, it makes sense that they should not, as in your proposal. However, at ~17 miles/hex (IIRC), it makes some (historical) sense for NO unit should have a ZOC. For that matter, it also makes historical sense to allow 6 to 8 divisions (more or less, depending on division size) to stack in a single hex. Consider how many divisions were on the beaches at Normandy across what is in the game a 3 to 4 hex front before the breakout; or how many were in the Battle of the Bulge across a three hex front.

Back on topic, it also makes historical sense to allow Paras to drop right on top of enemy units, and never to drop into a hex NOT adjacent to a friendly unit (including other dropped Paras). At the D-Day game scale, the D-Day drops were adjacent to beaches, and in Market-Garden, the drops were the equivalent of dropping a chain of 3 divisions starting at the Allied front line and proceeding through adjacent hexes three deep into the German rear.

Some significant alteration of the game system would be needed to do any of these "more historical" approaches. All that would greatly modify the "standard" AH early 1960s game system, which was not something Avalon Hill would have entertained. Once they had a game system established, nearly all the official alterations (clarifications, but in some cases outright rule changes, also newer editions of the rules) seemed (to me) to be aimed at preserving the game, not achieving historical fidelity.

Nothing stops anyone else from trying to 'fix up' the game, as Kenny did in a very workable mix of the 65 and 77 rules, or as you are doing here and in other recent posts. When you get a modified system crystallized, I will likely set it up and try it out a few times, and look forward to that.

You ask, "What is your motivation?"
I suppose it is to go back toward what I learned way back when with D-Day and Blitzkrieg. "You have to worry about letting those pesky Paras drop behind you." '77 seems to make it pretty much impossible to do much about it except see that they die for their efforts, often attacking you right after they kill your Panzer corps.

You know it is not necessary to get the scale right to simulate something. I think you are arguing that the entire game fails as a simulation and therefore; we don't really want to go back to the beginning and do it all over, do we? In that I agree with both parts of the statement. But, that doesn't mean we can't improve the simulation within the limitations set by what already has been done.

Historically the Germans did make efforts to contain the Para threat. It is reasonable for the designer (here, me & you) to try to simulate this somehow.

Let me ask you this -- Do you think that the new '77 Para rule makes the game better or worse? Maybe going back to the '65 rule is the way to go. Or is my compromise better?

BTW two 1-2-2 are equal to a 3-4-3, so why can't the Germans put the 3-4-3 on the beach and spread out the two 1-2-2 behind it? This would simply be a way of simulating the break down of the German Inf. Div., would it not?

deadkenny thinks that '77 needs changes like omitting TAC to give the Germans a chance. Personally I would rather change the Para rule than omit TAC. TAC was historically a big part of the Allied Order of Battle, and it makes as much sense to omit it as it would to omit 1/3 of all the Allied divisions -- to give the Germans a chance.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Oh my God They Banned Kenny
Canada
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
Steve1501 wrote:
....deadkenny thinks that '77 needs changes like omitting TAC to give the Germans a chance....


I believe I made it clear that my variant removed tac air from '77 because it was 'tacked on' I was simply moving back to a more '65 like set of rules, while retaining the much better written basic rules from '77, plus some obvious improvements such as the supply rules.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve
Thailand
flag msg tools
deadkenny wrote:
Steve1501 wrote:
....deadkenny thinks that '77 needs changes like omitting TAC to give the Germans a chance....


I believe I made it clear that my variant removed tac air from '77 because it was 'tacked on' I was simply moving back to a more '65 like set of rules, while retaining the much better written basic rules from '77, plus some obvious improvements such as the supply rules.

Sorry, your motivation was not clear to me.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lee Trowbridge
United States
Tennessee
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Steve1501 wrote:
You know it is not necessary to get the scale right to simulate something. I think you are arguing that the entire game fails as a simulation and therefore; we don't really want to go back to the beginning and do it all over, do we? In that I agree with both parts of the statement. But, that doesn't mean we can't improve the simulation within the limitations set by what already has been done.

That's sort of what I was getting at by the question of motivation. It's always possible to have a much better simulation game (not much resembling the game D-Day but using its physical components). But more than likely that's been done many times not as a retrofit and is likely not the best approach. Fixing up the game a little, as a game, makes more sense to me.

Steve1501 wrote:
Historically the Germans did make efforts to contain the Para threat. It is reasonable for the designer (here, me & you) to try to simulate this somehow.

FWIW, the 61A and 61B rule was "paras can't land adjacent to an enemy unit; DD65 forbade landing in an enemy ZOC (a fine point). There were also some (probably unintended) loopholes in the 61A and B rules regarding where drops could occur that were closed with the publication of DD65 (one was: drop within 5 of a combat unit, move the para 3 hexes, drop a second within 5 of that unit, move three, etc. etc.) But I digress.

Steve1501 wrote:
Let me ask you this -- Do you think that the new '77 Para rule makes the game better or worse? Maybe going back to the '65 rule is the way to go. Or is my compromise better?

I think the 61 or 65 para rules are more in the spirit of the game rules. Not too historic, as I said earlier. Probably my feeling is simply habit, as I had always played with the 61A or 65 rules (or a mix thereof) until seeing the 61B and 77 rules here on BGG in the last several years. Your proposal sounds workable but requires exceptions to the ZOC rules. Not a show stopper, but it gets outside the emvelope of the evolved D-Day rules (if that matters).

Steve1501 wrote:
BTW two 1-2-2 are equal to a 3-4-3, so why can't the Germans put the 3-4-3 on the beach and spread out the two 1-2-2 behind it? This would simply be a way of simulating the break down of the German Inf. Div., would it not?

1-2-2's are required to be placed on coastal hexes (though the term "coastal hex" wasn't clearly defined in 61A and was violated in the 61B deployment example!). The customary practice with 61A was to use HQ units to para-screen the beaches to the extent possible. 61B forbade use of more than one HQ per player, though that rule was (I think) hardly ever abided by as the para-screen function was needed too badly!

Adding a breakdown or step-loss scheme would, I think, definitely get too far from the original game. (Those came in with, I think, Guadalcanal and Blitzkrieg). Again, a question of what are the, shall we say, admissible bounds on your variant rule set.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve
Thailand
flag msg tools
E_T_Lee wrote:
Steve1501 wrote:
BTW two 1-2-2 are equal to a 3-4-3, so why can't the Germans put the 3-4-3 on the beach and spread out the two 1-2-2 behind it? This would simply be a way of simulating the break down of the German Inf. Div., would it not?

1-2-2's are required to be placed on coastal hexes (though the term "coastal hex" wasn't clearly defined in 61A and was violated in the 61B deployment example!). The customary practice with 61A was to use HQ units to para-screen the beaches to the extent possible. 61B forbade use of more than one HQ per player, though that rule was (I think) hardly ever abided by as the para-screen function was needed too badly!

Adding a breakdown or step-loss scheme would, I think, definitely get too far from the original game. (Those came in with, I think, Guadalcanal and Blitzkrieg). Again, a question of what are the, shall we say, admissible bounds on your variant rule set.

What I am saying is -- if the Germans need every bit of help they can get, then why not let the 1-2-2 set up anywhere within 4 hexes of a beach hex? . . Also, is this rule about 1-2-2 only on the beaches also in '77?

Because I have changed my mind about the Para drop rule and now just want to return it to the '65 rule, I have less need for many 1-2-2 in the Para screen to cover more hexes. If I could put 1-2-2 more inland I would just put them at locations to keep from being surrounded. I would not put 3-4-3 on the beach unless two 1-2-2 would not work for some reason, because I would rather they did not die in an Exchange or Heaven forbid a DE. Better that 2x 1-2-2 die in that Exchange.

I did not add a break down scheme. The game already has it. You can put 2x 1-2-2 in a beach hex or a 3-4-3. If you put the 3-4-3 there you can split the 2x 1-2-2 and put them at 2 different locations. IMHO the rule about 1-2-2 on beaches was to keep you from putting a bunch of them next to Switzerland. Not all of them were historically on the beach, in particular the 3 LW Field Div. were historically different from the Static Div.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve
Thailand
flag msg tools
E_T_Lee, you have thought about the game's scale.

Ignoring the effect on the game for now and just looking at the scale --

Is it reasonable for there to be both SM and a MMP? [SM= stra. move & MMP= Mech move phase.]

I thinking out loud here. Leave SM as it is in the main MP and same units can use it. Add a MMP after the combat phase where only Armor, Pz, & PGD can move. In their MMP units can move adjacent to enemy units so long as they don't enter their ZOC except to stack with a unit already there in the hex in the ZOC.

Mostly I'm asking if 12 hexes in a week is reasonable as a maximum move.

The extra abilities in the MMP come from my playing PanzerGrupe Guderian, where grabbing every hex is how things are done. Here we have to temper that a lot. We don't want to make it too easy to leverage the enemy out of a hex by making him attack to hold it.

WDYT?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lee Trowbridge
United States
Tennessee
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Steve1501 wrote:
Mostly I'm asking if 12 hexes in a week is reasonable as a maximum move. WDYT?

A hex in D-Day is about 17 miles (29 km), a turn one week. 12 hexes/week, then is around 30 miles/day. Certainly not much for a few vehicles, but that I think is rivaling the maximum sustained advance rates for large formations.

The standard wargame movement model in the 60s was "all units can move their maximum movement factor" (as opposed to, say, chess or checkers). But when you start boosting the movement factors a great deal, the problem would be that (realistically) all units couldn't be supplied to move their maximum movement factor.

In D-Day, I'm not (in principle) in favor of increasing the complexity of the supply rules, but if you institute increased movement rates, it might be fair to charge more supply for units moving beyond a minimum level (perhaps the standard MF).
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve
Thailand
flag msg tools
E_T_Lee wrote:
In D-Day, I'm not (in principle) in favor of increasing the complexity of the supply rules, but if you institute increased movement rates, it might be fair to charge more supply for units moving beyond a minimum level (perhaps the standard MF).

This is easy to do for the Allies, there are a couple of different ways.

How can I do this for the Germans?

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve
Thailand
flag msg tools
E_T_Lee wrote:
Steve1501 wrote:
Mostly I'm asking if 12 hexes in a week is reasonable as a maximum move. WDYT?

A hex in D-Day is about 17 miles (29 km), a turn one week. 12 hexes/week, then is around 30 miles/day. Certainly not much for a few vehicles, but that I think is rivaling the maximum sustained advance rates for large formations.

It would be very rare for a unit to move 11 or 12 hexes against resistance because if it uses SM it can't attack. When moving from position to position (think of the 101st Airborne moving to Bastogne) behind their own lines, units could go much faster.

But, even the worst case is possible, if just barely. That is moving through mostly recently enemy evacuated hexes.

Then the next question is -- how much does this destabilize the game?
Does 1 side or the other always easily win?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lee Trowbridge
United States
Tennessee
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Moving into unoccupied enemy territory, in general, should be slower than moving in one's rear area. In the first case there might be demolitions, blown bridges, obstacles, refugees wanting assistance, a serious lack of fuel and supply dumps. In the latter case much of that would (hopefully) be cleared up (though the bars and brothels might be open!).

I've only ever played with DD77 strategic movement solo, experimenting with various plans I saw in old AH Generals ans the like. I seem to recall that advance (once the front had "cracked") was in practice almost always limited to 4 per turn anyway. The German would pull back 6 from the furthest forward allied unit which could move 4 with normal movement (not quite reaching the German), but could not move even 5 (except laterally) because that would put him in a ZOC.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve
Thailand
flag msg tools
E_T_Lee wrote:
I've only ever played with DD77 strategic movement solo, experimenting with various plans I saw in old AH Generals ans the like. I seem to recall that advance (once the front had "cracked") was in practice almost always limited to 4 per turn anyway. The German would pull back 6 from the furthest forward allied unit which could move 4 with normal movement (not quite reaching the German), but could not move even 5 (except laterally) because that would put him in a ZOC.

I understand, and can see that the Allies could not in general move much in their MMP either. The Germans are falling back, they stop 5 away from Allied units, Allies move 4 and can't move 1 more with SM because that would be moving adjacent, then in MMP they can't move much [just 1 more if a river keeps them out of the ZOC].

I wonder if that 1 more would make much difference. In the next turn the Germans would need to go back 5 (which with SM is easy).

I'll have to think about this some more.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Oh my God They Banned Kenny
Canada
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
Steve1501 wrote:
I understand, and can see that the Allies could not in general move much in their MMP either. The Germans are falling back, they stop 5 away from Allied units, Allies move 4 and can't move 1 more with SM because that would be moving adjacent, then in MMP they can't move much [just 1 more if a river keeps them out of the ZOC].

I wonder if that 1 more would make much difference. In the next turn the Germans would need to go back 5 (which with SM is easy).

I'll have to think about this some more.


FWIW my experience is the same as Lee's, in that the Germans will attempt to maintain a string of units 1 hex out of 'range' of regular movement, and therefore deny the Allies the opportunity to advance the front more than 4 hexes. Note that the Germans need only retreat 4 hexes to maintain the 5 hex gap. The problem is that German regular infantry cannot themselves use strat movement. Nor can static. So the Germans can only use their own armour, paras or HQ's to do this over several turns. Also note that a river would not allow the Allies to advance adjacent during strat move - the prohibition in the rules is on being adjacent, not in a ZoC.

Where strat move does make a huge difference in in the Allies advancing reinforcement to the front. Once the front has advanced far beyond the initial landing site, follow-up forces can have quite a distance to go to the rapidly advancing front. Unless a large cap port can be captured closer to the front, there can be a delay in reinforcments making it to the front without strat move. With strat move, they can much more quickly 'catch up' to the front.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve
Thailand
flag msg tools
E_T_Lee wrote:
I agree with Kenny. I think we understand the mechanics of the proposal, but not necessarily the motivation. Are you trying to make the game a little more historically accurate? Or adjusting the substitute the paradrop game mechanic so that it is not quite as powerful?

D-Day, and for that matter all Avalon Hill games of that period, did not do well in getting scales historically correct - distances, unit density, movement rates, etc.

As to whether Paras should have a ZOC when they drop, it makes sense that they should not, as in your proposal. However, at ~17 miles/hex (IIRC), it makes some (historical) sense for NO unit should have a ZOC. For that matter, it also makes historical sense to allow 6 to 8 divisions (more or less, depending on division size) to stack in a single hex. Consider how many divisions were on the beaches at Normandy across what is in the game a 3 to 4 hex front before the breakout; or how many were in the Battle of the Bulge across a three hex front.

Back on topic, it also makes historical sense to allow Paras to drop right on top of enemy units, and never to drop into a hex NOT adjacent to a friendly unit (including other dropped Paras). At the D-Day game scale, the D-Day drops were adjacent to beaches, and in Market-Garden, the drops were the equivalent of dropping a chain of 3 divisions starting at the Allied front line and proceeding through adjacent hexes three deep into the German rear.

Some significant alteration of the game system would be needed to do any of these "more historical" approaches. All that would greatly modify the "standard" AH early 1960s game system, which was not something Avalon Hill would have entertained. Once they had a game system established, nearly all the official alterations (clarifications, but in some cases outright rule changes, also newer editions of the rules) seemed (to me) to be aimed at preserving the game, not achieving historical fidelity.

Nothing stops anyone else from trying to 'fix up' the game, as Kenny did in a very workable mix of the 65 and 77 rules, or as you are doing here and in other recent posts. When you get a modified system crystallized, I will likely set it up and try it out a few times, and look forward to that.

Another proposal for Para drops -- in '77.

Under the rules of '77, Para can drop into ZOC. This not only makes it very hard for a German anti-Para screen to keep Para from joining in attacks on the beach defenders, it also usually cuts off the retreats of said beach defenders.

I have proposed that Para dropped into ZOC lose their ZOC for German retreats. But, Para could move 1 if dropped out of ZOC and retain their ZOC.

What about this proposal? Para can drop into ZOC, but if they do then German units can retreat through the ZOC of such Para div. IF the ZOC hexes are occupied by German units.

My thinking is, this double wammy is just too much. That it is unreasonable to think that disorganized Para (disorganized because they were dropped close to German forces and didn't have time to get organized) could block retreats through hexes that already contain concentrations of German soldiers. That this is one place where retreat routes can be held open by friendly units.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve
Thailand
flag msg tools
deadkenny wrote:
Steve1501 wrote:
I understand, and can see that the Allies could not in general move much in their MMP either. The Germans are falling back, they stop 5 away from Allied units, Allies move 4 and can't move 1 more with SM because that would be moving adjacent, then in MMP they can't move much [just 1 more if a river keeps them out of the ZOC].

I wonder if that 1 more would make much difference. In the next turn the Germans would need to go back 5 (which with SM is easy).

I'll have to think about this some more.


FWIW my experience is the same as Lee's, in that the Germans will attempt to maintain a string of units 1 hex out of 'range' of regular movement, and therefore deny the Allies the opportunity to advance the front more than 4 hexes. Note that the Germans need only retreat 4 hexes to maintain the 5 hex gap. The problem is that German regular infantry cannot themselves use strat movement. Nor can static. So the Germans can only use their own armour, paras or HQ's to do this over several turns. Also note that a river would not allow the Allies to advance adjacent during strat move - the prohibition in the rules is on being adjacent, not in a ZoC.

Where strat move does make a huge difference in in the Allies advancing reinforcement to the front. Once the front has advanced far beyond the initial landing site, follow-up forces can have quite a distance to go to the rapidly advancing front. Unless a large cap port can be captured closer to the front, there can be a delay in reinforcments making it to the front without strat move. With strat move, they can much more quickly 'catch up' to the front.

deadkenny, it is clear that you were not following along. I am working on my own variant, in which there will be a MMP (Mech Movement Phase) in which Armor and Panzer & PGD would be able to move adjacent, but not into an empty ZOC. That is what we were talking about.

My thinking is now that I want to try 3 new things to see how they work in this game.
1] Don't have Str. Move., instead let all Mot. units [those with MF of 4 plus Ger. Para] move twice as far in the 1st MP of normal turns and still attack. Note: Armor is also Mot.
2] Add a MMP after the combat phase for armor, Panzer, & PGD only.
3] In order to simulate "surprise" -- Create a new sort of game turn. = Short Battle Turns which have the same combat phase, but less movement in the 2 movement phases. In particular no double movement for Mot. units.
. . . All invasion turns are short and players can add more if they want. But there are draw backs for both sides to use them. So I hope that there will not be too many used other than the 4 invasion turns.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Oh my God They Banned Kenny
Canada
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
Steve1501 wrote:
deadkenny wrote:
Steve1501 wrote:
I understand, and can see that the Allies could not in general move much in their MMP either. The Germans are falling back, they stop 5 away from Allied units, Allies move 4 and can't move 1 more with SM because that would be moving adjacent, then in MMP they can't move much [just 1 more if a river keeps them out of the ZOC].

I wonder if that 1 more would make much difference. In the next turn the Germans would need to go back 5 (which with SM is easy).

I'll have to think about this some more.


FWIW my experience is the same as Lee's, in that the Germans will attempt to maintain a string of units 1 hex out of 'range' of regular movement, and therefore deny the Allies the opportunity to advance the front more than 4 hexes. Note that the Germans need only retreat 4 hexes to maintain the 5 hex gap. The problem is that German regular infantry cannot themselves use strat movement. Nor can static. So the Germans can only use their own armour, paras or HQ's to do this over several turns. Also note that a river would not allow the Allies to advance adjacent during strat move - the prohibition in the rules is on being adjacent, not in a ZoC.

Where strat move does make a huge difference in in the Allies advancing reinforcement to the front. Once the front has advanced far beyond the initial landing site, follow-up forces can have quite a distance to go to the rapidly advancing front. Unless a large cap port can be captured closer to the front, there can be a delay in reinforcments making it to the front without strat move. With strat move, they can much more quickly 'catch up' to the front.

deadkenny, it is clear that you were not following along. I am working on my own variant, in which there will be a MMP (Mech Movement Phase) in which Armor and Panzer & PGD would be able to move adjacent, but not into an empty ZOC. That is what we were talking about.

My thinking is now that I want to try 3 new things to see how they work in this game.
1] Don't have Str. Move., instead let all Mot. units [those with MF of 4 plus Ger. Para] move twice as far in the 1st MP of normal turns and still attack. Note: Armor is also Mot.
2] Add a MMP after the combat phase for armor, Panzer, & PGD only.
3] In order to simulate "surprise" -- Create a new sort of game turn. = Short Battle Turns which have the same combat phase, but less movement in the 2 movement phases. In particular no double movement for Mot. units.
. . . All invasion turns are short and players can add more if they want. But there are draw backs for both sides to use them. So I hope that there will not be too many used other than the 4 invasion turns.


Steve1501, you are correct that I am "not following along" with your variant, in part because you seem to change it with every post you make. I was only commenting on the original game comments made by Lee, which you quoted. I try to not quote with too many nested levels of quotes, however, in retrospect it would have been clearer to have left in Lee's comment which you quoted here:


Steve1501 wrote:
E_T_Lee wrote:
I've only ever played with DD77 strategic movement solo, experimenting with various plans I saw in old AH Generals ans the like. I seem to recall that advance (once the front had "cracked") was in practice almost always limited to 4 per turn anyway. The German would pull back 6 from the furthest forward allied unit which could move 4 with normal movement (not quite reaching the German), but could not move even 5 (except laterally) because that would put him in a ZOC.

I understand, and can see that the Allies could not in general move much in their MMP either. The Germans are falling back, they stop 5 away from Allied units, Allies move 4 and can't move 1 more with SM because that would be moving adjacent, then in MMP they can't move much [just 1 more if a river keeps them out of the ZOC].

I wonder if that 1 more would make much difference. In the next turn the Germans would need to go back 5 (which with SM is easy).

I'll have to think about this some more.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.