The most "structured" A&A game?

Axis & Allies D-Day begins as Operation Overlord, the invasion of German-held Normandy, is underway -- 130,000 soldiers of the United Kingdom, Canada, and the United States are poised to assault Fortress Europe. You and your fellow world powers control their fates.
Post Reply
CanucKev
Posts: 88
Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2005 4:10 am
Location: Calgary, AB, Canada

The most "structured" A&A game?

Post by CanucKev » Tue Apr 10, 2007 4:57 am

I haven't played D-day in a while, meaning I've been thinking about it lots :p I love to tinker, and one of the things I've found with D-day is that it's very "structured" - ie, there's less choice/control given to the players.

This was a big reason why I wanted to (and did) try the only-attack-if-you-want-to rule ... I like it in theory (you control whether or not you fight); in practice, it just bogged down the Allies way too much. Perhaps using the long-range howitzer rule would help this, but I don't know, since I haven't tried it yet.

Obviously one of the biggest (if not THE biggest) difference between D-day and all other A&A games (excluding Bulge, which I haven't played yet but badly want to) is that you no longer get to choose what to buy, or even how much to buy or when to buy it. As of right now, this kinda bugs me!

(I know that D-day is a different system and a simpler game, and tactics-based rather than strategy-based, but that's not what I'm writing about.)

I guess what I'm asking is ... is it common for wargames to use reinforcement charts like that? Is it common for wargames to leave reinforcements (what, how many, and when) completely out of the players hands? In reality, wasn't it up to the commanders as to who to send where, and when?

Or is giving the player control of his reinforcements simply beyond the scope of this game? Is it this way so that the game focuses on doing something different with the exact same resources? Back in '44 when the troops left England, I assume it was pretty much carved in stone who would be landing, and in what order. But was it pretty much random how many troops actually came in as reinforcements? And was there no way for a commander to say, "wait, I want these troops to land now, instead"?

I realize a very simple house rule could be used here ... either don't use the reinforcement charts (and therefore the order of units entering; players could just pick units from a pool), don't roll dice to see how many reinforcements land (the player gets to choose exactly how many, though I'd guess they'd always choose the max), or both ...

:? So many questions.

Comrade Tiki
Posts: 28
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 7:38 pm
Contact:

Post by Comrade Tiki » Fri Apr 13, 2007 6:34 pm

That reminds me of the first time myself and some friends broke into D-Day. After two rounds... we decided to play MB A&A instead due to a "lost" sensation.

bobthefish
Posts: 35
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 1:26 pm

Post by bobthefish » Thu Aug 09, 2007 5:36 pm

I guess it is suppose to depict how they had laid out this time table and set up which troops were to go in. I agree there should be a diffrent system for determining how many units would go into battle. Since they have a turn based system I think some one should go back and look at what units arrived in the area and at what time then give a real time date to the end of each round and dettermin the units that way.

pellulo
Posts: 1282
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2004 10:12 pm
Location: P.R.
Contact:

From Macro to Micro game...

Post by pellulo » Wed Aug 27, 2008 9:04 pm

...as you go from a vague worldwide general A&A & Europe/Pacific games, its O.K. to just buy what you want. After all what is e.g. a tank/armor unit, an Panzar army/US Armor division/Soviet Tank army?

Considering they all have their strenght and weaknesses, and, yet A/D on the same dice rolls (Tiger/Sherman/T-34/Japanese HA-GO Type 95 belive me, do not share the same battle profile).

By the time you get to a more specfic game, you need it to be more structure, e.g. reinforcement charts for D-day,and, force a more realistic game (makes you use what you have). If not, letting GE. buy all the tanks they want, then you might as well let the Allies land in Norway, or, just nuke Normandy. Thanks, Pellulo
Pellulo

User avatar
Builder_Chris
Posts: 487
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 8:57 am
Location: Englewood, Colorado

Post by Builder_Chris » Tue Feb 10, 2009 1:26 pm

To date I’ve only played AAC, AAR, AA50, Guadalcanal and now D-day so I can’t speak for the other A&A games but D-Day is definitely a really structured game but rightfully so (IMO).

It’s also been years since I’ve played Panzer Blitz (now rereleased as Panzer Grenadier) but that game was/is a very detailed historical strategy game that recreates specific battles and those games are also very, very structured.

I personally think the idea behind them and D-day is that they need/should be structured because they are focused on a specific battle/area of the war instead of the entire war like the more traditional A&A games (AAC/AAR/AA50) are. D-Day is covering a few weeks or month at best of “real time” and so the probability/possibility for players to choose/purchase their own units during the game when it comes time for reinforcements would simply be bad gaming (IMO).

The reality of D-Day that is not shown in the game is that it took months of planning and staging of units before they all got sent into battle on that specific date. To have reinforcement charts dictate what units are “available” for the game makes good gaming/historical/realistic sense for the “type of game” D-Day is (IMO).

Commanders would have determined long before sending things across the channel on what units they had/could send to that sector of the war. And when the combat started they wouldn’t have had time to suddenly change their minds on what they should of/would of/could of sent based off of how things were going (or were not going) “according to plan” on the beaches/cities. At best they would have only been able to adjust what beach(s) and cities/towns those preselected/pre-staged units would be able to land on or go to; since things would have more than likely been sent out in preselected/predetermined “waves”. And since there is rarely perfect timing in combat (or any plans for that matter) they would have had very limited control over how many units "hit the beaches" at any one time (each round). I think the dice roll for the number of units a player can send each round from their reinforcement charts and what beaches those units would have been able to hit and the limit on the number of units that could land at each specific beach all make good logical scaled gaming sense and the reinforcement charts are a simple way to do this. Good idea IMO. :P

Again, I don’t think D-Day, like its predecessor games is a super “detailed” game as it could/would/should be in some players opinions, but again I think it was designed well with regards to how it plays.

For players to be able to select/purchase the reinforcement units that they want/need as the rounds of each game play out instead of having to take them from a predetermined/pre-staged reinforcement chart would be the equivalent of being able to send in more units into the combat after combat has already begun in AAR.

In AAR players do their combat moves, than conduct combat than noncombat moves. The noncombat and purchasing of units from all the previous turns are the equivalent of the “staging” of units that are represented by the reinforcement chart in D-Day. The combat move in AAR (focusing on one territory) is the equivalent of the ENTIRE game of D-Day. The combat rolls of one territory in AAR is the equivalent of all the rounds of play in D-Day. If we look at D-Day like that I think we would agree that the mechanics of the game make good sense; frustrating sense (sometimes) when things start going bad but no more frustrating than making a premature combat move in AAR with out enough units committed to it or a combat move that left you with more than enough units to win the battle for that territory but the dice just jacked you over so bad that you wish you would have sent in more units (IMO).

So far I like the “structure” of this game even if it does seem near to impossible for the Allies to win in ten rounds. But, than again this appearance may be due to the fact that I have only played it about 6 times…the Allies lost every time BUT came real close to winning 2 times.
Construimus, Batuimus -- "We Build, We Fight.".....we party all night!

pellulo
Posts: 1282
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2004 10:12 pm
Location: P.R.
Contact:

Re: The most "structured" A&A game?

Post by pellulo » Thu Dec 03, 2009 4:44 pm

Perhaps a revised game or addition for the game(e.g. new parts like landing craft, BB for shelling, etc.), in a mini add on set, for the original game?, thanks, Pellulo
Pellulo

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest