From: ROBERT GAMBLE Subject: D-Day by Avalon Hill Greetings. This message will probably seem odd coming from the same person who reviewed Invasion: Norway just recently, a much more complex game. Ostensibly, D-Day is an Introductory War Game by Avalaon Hill, suitable for teaching new players the hobby of Wargaming. I can honestly say that I managed to confuse myself because a lot of the concepts seem different than most of the games I've played before. However, I'll first review it as a wargame in its own right, and then examine it to see how it works as an introductory wargame. I may have more to say on the latter soon, since I plan to try to teach a friend how to play it. The Good: The map is very nicely done, small and with the Terrain Effects table printed right on it. I enjoyed the way invasion is handled, allowing the player to decide when and where to invade. This allows for a wide variety of strategies. I enjoy the more 'strategic' flavor of games like this which cover a large campaign, more so than tactically oriented games. Just to let those who may _not_ have seen the game know, it covers the entire course of the war in Western Europe starting with D-Day, so the title of the game may be a bit misleading. This isn't _quite_ correct, as only the alternative history scenario which starts the invasion in 1943 has victory conditions of capturing Berlin. The number of turns makes the objectives in either scenario quite tight, and it's very easy to get too caught up in attacking individual German bastions which should be ignored as the Allies in their push towards the victory locations and cities. The combat system is certainly more involved than the CRT I'd expected in an 'Introductory Game'. Basically, both sides roll a 1d10, add modifiers based on the terrain they're attacking or defending from, and whoever has the higher roll 'wins'. Retreating is the most common effect of combat, dislodging units from fortified cities (Germans anyways) is exceedingly difficult.. Guarding supply lines is necessary. I like the supply system in place, needing to use the supply points to move and to attack, especially when supply points gained is determined by control of cities and HQ units on the continent (rather than the set number of points per turn method used in the 'Basic' game). The Bad: While the use of HQ units to drag around other units does create interesting decisions, it makes the game rather confusing at points. Why are you allowed to have only one unit per hex, unless they're in a HQ unit (in which case _every_ unit on the map could be in a HQ unit). Sure, huge stacks on the map are eliminated, but logically this makes little sense to me. Also, it took me awhile to realize that when attacked, not only do the units in the holding box of the HQ defend, but so does the HQ unit. At least I think this is correct. But this makes HQ units _extremely_ powerful for the Germans in defending a city. For example, One HQ unit plus a 2 point infantry unit in a Fortified City hex get the maximum positive modifier to their defense rolls. +4 for each German unit in a city hex, added to the 2 strength points of the infantry, results in +10. Many times it's proven to be all but impossible to dislodge this defensive combination. Again, I realize D-Day isn't meant to be 'historically accurate' or at least in terms of some more complex games, but a 0 strength HQ unit and the second weakest unit in the game, shouldn't be as effective defensively even in a fortified city as many strong units. The Ugly: Nothing jumps out at me. As usual with Avalon Hill, there is a nice commentary on the general history and weapons used in the battle, though at the strategic level of the game, the description of individual weapons really doesn't add anything to the game itself. Now.. How is this game as an introductory game? Perhaps I should have gone with 'Battle of the Bulge' where invasion elements wouldn't be included to add complexity, but I still think this game has a lot of elements which will confuse new players. A CRT based on an odds system seems much simpler than the method used. One die roll, the result directly on the chart rather than having to worry about the difference between two die rolls, seems to be the easier method. New players having to keep track of multiple modifiers in an attack or defense may be turned off... The HQ units _really_ add a lot more complexity to the game in my mind, as does the supply system where different actions take different numbers of points to act. Not the 'old' 'move everyone in one turn' type game that I would have expected (again, this makes the game more _historically_ accurate and I like the system a lot, but it does add complexity). Movement is somewhat confusing also, allowing units to move either their movement allowance and attack, or move twice their allowance and not attack. This isn't a problem for me, but I can see players new to the genre trying to keep track of what units they moved twice their allowance, and which ones they didn't. It all comes down to this game requiring much more calculation (combat rolls), calculation (Supply expenditure, how to split units up between HQ so as to not waste units) and even more calculation, than one might expect from an introductory level game Final Analysis: _I_ like the game as a kinda fun Solitaire game, to leave set up an fiddle with. But I wouldn't count this as an introductory level game, or at least not one that you can expect to easily be understood by a new player to the genre. On the other hand, the use of HQ units and the change in combat resolution _does_ mean that players used to other systems, will be on more equal footing with a new player. Also, it has to be said again, the name of the game can definitely mislead. D-Day itself is merely the start of a game that lasts 12 months. Rather than a tactical level game on the beaches of Normandy, you have a game that covers the entire Eastern European war starting from the invasion at Normandy. Robert Comments are appreciated gambler@vxc.uncwil.edu