Siegfried Line, Atlantic Wall and bunkers/pillboxes

Here is an example of the failure of bombing a small coastal emplacement at Normandy:

"SAINT-MARCOUF : THE CRISBECQ BATTERY
GERMAN COASTAL DEFENSE

The only heavy battery on the eastern coast of the Cotentin Peninsula, the Crisbecq Battery, was located 2.5 kilometers from the shore on a crest overlooking all of Utah Beach. From Crisbecq, the Germans could see and defend the entire coastline from Saint-Vaast-la-Hougue to Grandcamp.

Although it was never completed, the Crisbecq battery was the keystone of this portion of the German Atlantic Wall with three, long-range 210 mm cannons and a garrison of 400 men. The Allies dropped over 800 bombs on Crisbecq between April 19 and June 6, 1944. This unrelenting aerial attack climaxed on the night of June 5 when 101 four-engine bombers unleashed 598 tons of explosives on the battery. On June 6, the surroundings were unrecognizable, but the guns were still intact.

At 6 am on D-Day, as GI’s were landing on Utah Beach, Crisbecq opened fire, sinking an American destroyer.

The battery held out for several days, despite shelling by U.S. battleships and attacks from the American Infantry in hand-to-hand trench combat.

To repel the Allied assault, the German commander of Crisbecq radioed to the Azeville battery and requested that it fire on his position. Crisbecq was finally taken at 8:20 am on June 12, after the German commandment ordered its troops to evacuate to La Pernelle, between Quettehou and Barfleur. The fierce German resistance momentarily halted the Allied Advance to the north. "

Just pulled that off of a google search on D-Day.  I’m not trying to be a chump with this post, just noting that “bunkers” were built to be hidden (maybe not all of them) and to withstand such an attack even if discovered before ground operations.  I mean if 101 heavy bombers in one mission the night before D-Day have little impact why should a SBR inflict damage on a bunker?

I love the idea for a Europe 1939 game, 3 individual blocks with own specific victory conditions.

Player 1, the Axis with Germany and Italy, separate economies but move and attack together.

Player 2, the Commies, USSR aka Russia, joined with China in the global game.

Player 3, the democratic western allies USA, UK, France, separate economies but move and attack together.

Questions always come up about Mongolia in Global and the technicalities involved (who attacks/moves where, etc). To make life easier, I propose making Mongolian TTs pro-Russian neutrals that can be activated by Russia one TT at a time in the NCM phase. This will be considered an act of war against Japan.

Japan in turn can invade any Mongolian TT if it pleases, constituting an act of war against Russia. The remaining Mongolian TTs will stay pro-Russian neutral and not immediately activate.

I find the current rules overly complicated and not necessarily historical: Mongolia was a client state of the USSR and could easily be persuaded to join the war effort against Japan, and did so in 1945.

I don’t think the US could be charged for passing through the Suez, since they’d have to be at war to get there.

@The:

Yes but in D-Day there was only 3 powers. Only 1 was defending

Whats your point with this statement  :?
Sorry don´t get it  :-(

@Mr:

If you want to play “vanilla” then by all means do so.  As for me, I like a little Rocky Road sometimes!

Making Rocky Road out of vanilla ice cream means you have to buy chocolate ice cream and marshmellows too, when you could just buy a brand of Rocky Road ice cream.

That assumes someone around you is selling Rocky Road though.  (Besides, I like pee–-kans in my ice cream.)

Anyway, I’d love to see an option for defender retreat.  I’ll start a thread!

@Zhukov_2003:

i have played this way

Who won? Was Karelia a dead zone?

that seems a little complicated though. Besides, getting a fair moderater might prove to be a challange.