Skip to toolbar

Reply To: Continued Explorations of Normandy Wargaming

Home Forums Historical Tabletop Game Discussions Continued Explorations of Normandy Wargaming Reply To: Continued Explorations of Normandy Wargaming

#1406102

oriskany
60771xp
Cult of Games Member

@redvers

For the blocks, there are two schools of thought.  I’m looking at the block special rules for the Omaha scenario on gregpanzerblitz.com.  In that game, EVERY hex has a block in it.  So you can’t miss them.  But when you pass through a beach obstacle block  hex you make a roll, 1-3 = OK, 4-5 = Dispersed (pinned), 6 = Killed.  It’s actually more realistic (these hexes are 150-250 meters across, depending on rules version), and these counters are each a platoon trying to make their way THROUGH a hex strewn with these things.

I went with the way I did for the Gold Beach game because, even though it’s a little less realistic, it added more player agency for my live players (i.e., at least you get to “choose your fate” and select your hex and hope you missed the obstacle).

But for my Omaha solitaire, I might do it the other way, where it’s ALWAYS up to the dice.

The reason tanks and infantry get the same chance is because both are units coming out of boats (LCAs, LCIs, LCVPs, or LCTs) that run right up in the surf.

The exception, of course, are DD tanks, which do not have to make a block check at all.  They have their own power and steering, so land where they want (no drift rules), but might sink when they’re still out in the channel surf (technically, before they’re even placed on the table).

The ratings for whether DD tanks sink are different, but that’s based on how far the tanks are released from the shore.  The British did a much better job here.

See, I thought “Dorsets” was just a shortened nickname for “Doresetshire.”  I had Dorsetshire on the parent unit label, but in the video I think I say Dorsetshire and Dorsets interchangeably.  Oh well.

Soviet WW2 naming conventions aren’t that complicated (1st Brigade, 2nd Brigade, 3rd, etc.)  It’s the way units are changed and replaced.  Which regular unit later became which guards unit, AND WHEN, etc.  Also, so many units are destroyed and re-raised, destroyed and re-raised again, destroyed and re-raised AGAIN.  This drops off sharply after the summer of ‘42 when Soviet unit losses finally started to round the bend.  Also, they use completely different “tree structures” for armored, non-armored, and artillery units, and oh yeah, they made these switches in the MIDST of the war, so you have to track both and remember when the switch-over was made, and it was at different times for different echelon levels (regiment, brigade, division, corps, etc.).

Oh, and of course, do it in Russian. 🙁

Пиздец!

Supported by (Turn Off)