My plastic storage trays are set up so that the butternut-grey ANZAC-pattern ANZAC pieces from AAP40(2) stand in for Australia, New Zealand and South Africa while the butternut-grey British-pattern ANZAC pieces from AAP40(1) stand in for Canada (which is understood to include Newfoundland, and which in principle would also include Eire if it ever went from being neutral to Allied).Â That covers the six Commonwealth Dominions, in two groups of three each.Â The only cross-set transfer I had to do was to allocate some of the AAP40(2) ANZAC AAA guns to the Canadian set, since AAP40(1) lacked an AAA sculpt.
I would have used the generic AA gun for Canada just for zero cross-set transfer
D-day is the only A&A game with cards other than setup or things like unit stats in minis. D-day is much shorter than most maybe all other games. I don’t think any of the games I’ve played have been longer than three hours and I would guess much shorter like 1 hour 45 minutes to 2 and 1 half hours.
While I’ve never played Memoir '44, I have played Battlecry which is a similar system and the cards are not really similar. There are three sets of cards: Order, Fortune and Tactics. The Order cards are the only ones you must play with and they are basically the phases of the turn. As the game progress some of the phases no longer happen and those cards can be removed from the game.
The Fortune and Tactics cards are optional. Tactics cards give you a one shot benefit to be used during a particular order. You use them once and they are removed and can’t be used again. Fortune cards ask you to roll a die. Depending on the outcome of the roll one side will gain a benefit or suffer a hinderance. Fortune cards come up everytime you come to the Order card they are associated with. If the order no longer applies then the Fortune card can be removed as well.
I think D-Day is a nice game and it is a good intro to A&A for younger players or a nice quick game if you want to play more than one.
“Did you take into consideration that the Naval Bombardment can only target the pillboxes?”
Yeah. They just need to take out the pillboxes at Omaha(bombing is out of the question because of the 3 AA, otherwise that would work nice), taking on 7 is a lot better than 9…
"I would think that you could get yourself in trouble simply getting to Cherbourg if you do this. If your opponent is in the habit of abandoning it he can bog you down pretty good around Utah. You might try encircling St. Lo from the Cherbourg side while concentrating your Ftrs in those reinforcement zones. That might force the Germans in on the Caen side and bring them in range of the British overrunning that city faster leaving less for the US to root out of St. Lo. Not march on St. Lo per se but march on the reinforcement zones on that side of the board. Overrun it with your tanks.
I certainly agree that clearing the Omaha beachhead is a no. 1 priority."
Personally, I like it when the Cherbourg Axis units assault the beach. The majority of the first American units are infantry so it’s hard to get a quick start anyhow, and if the battle goes down at the beach, the Axis only have 15 units or so (plus you can bomb them), so although they may inflict some heavy damage at first eventually they die off and you only have to march one infantry (or one tank to move faster) up to Cherbourg. And, if they get lucky at the beach you know how much you have to compensate, while when you have to march all the way to Cherbourg there is a chance that you could misestimate.
Although, maybe I just haven’t seen an Axis player handle a Utah beach well yet.
I’ll try the reinforcement rush sometime, it sounds like it could work out well…
the thing is, with how I have done this strat games so far the brits are hurting a lot more than the U.S., and I generally end up with more than sufficient in St. Lo units while Caen is in danger of being pincered by both the Rouen/Chartres reinforcements and some of the Renn/Chartres reinforcements, so I don’t even know if I’d want Renn/Chartres going to Chartres.
Well actually the battle of britain itself was not necassarily a German mistake.Â The way the battle of britain was fought was a mistake.Â In the beginning of the battle the Germans were smart to only target the British airforce.Â However, the air battle was lasting longer than Hitler wanted… so he decided he would bomb London instead.Â All of the german generals thought this was a huge mistake and wanted to keep attacking the airforce.Â In fact on the day that they started targetting london there were only 14 operational planes in the whole UK.Â If the German generals would have had their way the Germans would have won the battle of britain.
Even assuming Germany “wins” the air war, they never win the battle of Britain. Britain never gets successfully invaded, Germany just doesnt have the operational power to do so.
The mistake was in attacking Britain, rather than the Med. Taking Egypt (and gaining access to Iran/Iraq oil) and depriving UK of supplies was the only way to “win” (which eventually would not have worked as the USA would eventually enter the war and supply Britain with whatever was needed).
Had the med been conquered and become an axis lake, you could delay Torch till 44. Perhaps egypt is never retaken until 45. Which would give Germany time to mass produce its "super-weapons). This also assumes the blunders on the eastern front are also ignored.