We've played "Bloody Omaha" a couple of times (scenario from the Normandy campaign expansion booklet). Although it's a very enjoyable scenario and it's actually very well-balanced (we've seen roughgly an equal number of wins for both sides), there's one thing that's always bothered us a lot and it doesn't only apply to this specific beach scenario. It's the vulnerability of (units in) bunkers to combined small weapons fire. The Americans/ British start having the initiative meaning that THE thing to do is combine fire on the Allied first action turn rather than getting the heck off of the beaches! Some easy solutions would be:

* Germans start with initiative (can at least do some damage before being blown out of the bunkers, if they've been stupid enough to set up in them in the first place.. , using the current rules)

* Squads use their anti-vehicle range and firepower against units in bunkers. Personally I prefer this option as it seems much more historically accurate and might actually convince the Germans to USE their bunkers for their intended purpose. Might be necessary to give the Allies some additional squads, cards and the like in certain situations, though.

Yesterday I was leafing through said scenario booklet and thought it might be nice to play e.g. "hide and Seek", but the above made me prefer e.g. Operation Goodwood or breakthrough to Saint Lo. Of course i could first try the above as a houserule.

How do you guys feel about this?

Kingtiger said:

Bunkers are immune to concussive firepower.

KlausFritsch said:

No. Only to suppressive fire. ;-)

Kingtiger said:

Heck of a good idea.

Current goal of keeping to bunkers - to make the enemy lose a round. Means heading for victory through the use of abstract concepts (losses of rounds). No reality whatsoever in this approach.

Your goal of keeping to bunkers - to be able to avoid enemy fire. Means getting the game back to reality by using the bunkers for the fundamental purpose they were designed for.

von Stichen said:

Thanks. Obviously another approach would be to simply use the Operations card "Massive confusion" disallowing combined fire, but I do think the above suggestion would be much more historically accurate.

von Stichen said:

What he said.

Bunkers are immunte to suppresive fire.

But also, according to a post by BJaffe, (if I dont rememer incorrectly) tanks do not get concussive firepower bonus versus Bunkers. Or, I think he said 'thats how we played it' In this case, bunkers are an obviusly powerfull defensive building, regardless of the combined fire issue.

But regardless, if combined fire was only allowed from 1 or 2 hexes away, standing still at the beach would be far less obvius.

Grand Stone said:

Yes, you're right, no concussive firepower either. The thing is, though, that I was talking about SQUADS using COMBINED fire. That seems like an unrealistic way to eliminate a bunker. Sure it would help if you just fire enough to lay down some covering fire, but the way it is now it still seems unrealistic and overpowered.

Kingtiger said:

A - I partly agree with you.

B - It is only a game, some simplification is to be expected.

C - If you lose one or two squads as the defender in bunkers, but the enemy keeps still in the open on the beach and leaves the rest of your forces alone, then blast his infantry. You should easily be able to kill more figures than the attacker did.

KlausFritsch said:

A- glad to hear that.

B- obviously. i wouldn't want TOI to turn into ASL. However, when you CAN make things more historically accurate and realistic by a minor rule change, or even a scenario special rule without really making things more complicated, I don't see any reason NOT to do it. I hope you can agree with that too.

C- I partly agree. However, I would prefer if tanks (which is exactly why Sherman DDs etc. were sent along with the invasion troops!) had to take out bunkers/ giving fire support. I'm also perfectly ok with infantry being able to do this, but it should then be at CLOSE range and not from the water's edge. Satchel charges are a nice addition to the Normandy expansion in this respect.

Kingtiger said:

It is an odd and non-historical tactic to stay on the beach and try to shoot the bunkers.

It might be good to limit concentrated fire for infantry units in beach hexes.

- no more than two squads may combine fire

or

- no combined fire for squads except against adjacent targets

KlausFritsch said:

Nice possible solutions as well! I think I might just try "Hide and seek" with one of the houserules suggested, just to give it more of the right "feel". As you said, what bothers me is that staying on the beach and firing at the bunkers doesn't make any historical sense whatsoever...

KlausFritsch said:

Hmmm. The rules I can find state that pill boxes and Buildings can be targets of concusive firepower. That 'implies' that bunkers are imune, since they are not specifically mentions. I could have missed that tho. Anyone know the 'official' rule?

Delget said:

The official rule is only the implication. Some time ago, I sent the following question to FFG and got the following reply :

Normandy : Are bunkers vulnerable to Concussive Firepower? I would think that they are.
Neither Bunkers nor Supply Depots suffer from Concussive attacks.

Normandy : Are supply depots vulnerable to Concussive Firepower? I would think that they are not.
Neither Bunkers nor Supply Depots suffer from Concussive attacks.

Delget said:

Sorry for the confusion. I'm NOT talking about concussive firepower. They would be stupid to set up in a bunker (or any hex within LOS of the landing forces actually!) because the Allies start with initiative and can easily eliminate the Germans before they can get a shot in, using COMBINED fire. I'm primarily talking about SQUADS not tanks.

Kingtiger said:

But who wants to play scenarios that follow history anyway? We already know who won that.

Hefsgaard said:

It´s not about following history. It´s about portraiting historical battles correctly.

von Stichen said:

Seconded. Would you like a regular squad with some kind of hero tactics card to be able to destroy a tank at long range?

Hefsgaard said:

Not follow history, but have the feel of "that might also have happened, if....". Staying on the beach and shooting at the sea wall positions and bunkers would most certainly not have led to a success on D-Day.

KlausFritsch said:

Exactly. So I'm going to try a beach scenario ('Hide and Seek") with the houserule that infantry use their ant-infantry firwepower and range against bunkers. Seems more historically accurate to me. I mean it was probably easier to destroy a Sherman than to destroy a bunker...

Might give the Allies some medals (campaign specialization) and perhaps a few more units with the charges specialization to offset the advantage the Germans will get using this rule.

I usually do not advocate making rules more complicated, but in this case I don't think it IS more complicated and at the same time it would be a lot more historically accurate: a win-win situation I mean can anyone imagine the beach landing scene in "Saving Private Ryan" to be like: "Hey guys, let's all position ourselves at the water's edge and aim our rifles at that bunker over there! Success guaranteed!"

I have the same problem with the hedge-cutters op card by the way. I've posted this in some other thread a long time ago. The problem is basically that a single Sherman Rhino can cut 3 hexes of hedgerows in a single activation LENGTHWISE! Solution: Whenever a Sherman Rhino enters a hex containing a hedgerow and elects to breach it, place a breach token and immediately fatigue the Sherman.

I don't like the fact either that a breached hedgerow thereupon counts as a clear hex for ALL purposes (I'd say YES for movement, NO for LOS), but that is something I can live with. The former is completely insane...

How do you guys feel about this rule? If we ever play a scenario with this op card again, I guess we'll be using the above houserule as well.

Kingtiger said:

I find that too restrictive. How about, a Sherman Rhino may not breach more than one hedgerow per round? That would allow a Sherman to keep moving after breaching.

KlausFritsch said:

Yeah, that would certainly be an option too, but no multiple breaches per activation!

Kingtiger said:

That sounds good.

Or perhaps a smalle change so that a breach is only a breach and not a clearing. Leave LOS restrictions and only allow normal movement Through the hegde.

Hefsgaard said:

That's indeed part two of the houserule we've been discussing in our playgroup. I DON'T KNOW, BUT THIS WAY THE RULES FOR HEDGES WOULD HAVE MADE MUCH MORE SENSE TO US ...(capitals unintentional; caps lock was on...)