D-day at Tarawa/Omaha Beach PC games

[rocketman]

I have for a long time had my eyes on the Omaha Beach game but hasn't ordered as they don't offer download option (seriously  :pullhair:) and shipping and tax to Europe can cost as much as the game. Today I saw that there is a Tarawa game too (and a Peleliu in the making) so I'm thinking of ordering both while at it. But, Decision Games are not the best at marketing since there are no screenshots of the Tarawa game, almost no info on both, no trailers, basically no nothing to wet my appetite some more. Anyone here tried the games? The boardgames are supposed to be great, but has that transferred to the PC?

[ArizonaTank]

I only have D-Day Omaha, the physical game.  I like it very much and have played a few Vassal games of it (Decision Games only allows Vassal Mod for Omaha, not the others).  So I am interested to see if this new digital version has AI. 

If you are interested, I did an AAR of the physical game a few years ago here:
http://grogheads.com/forums/index.php?topic=9310.msg236492#msg236492

[bbmike]

I have D-Day at Omaha. I'm fairly certain there is a German AI.

[Barthheart]

I would love to get D-Day at Omaha...... ;)

[Grim.Reaper]

Some feedback when originally released...

https://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/1315254/pc-version-arrived-today

[DennisS]

I would love to get D-Day at Omaha...... ;)

I would as well..but it suffers from one flaw. Knowledge of the colors and half moons would allow you to not step THERE, but instead, step HERE, to avoid THAT weapon that attacks THERE, but not HERE. Kinda like the old Ambush! series of games. Step on hex H-32, and an MG32 shows up. This defeats the purpose, by gaming the map itself. The soldiers on the beach learned the hard way not to step THERE..and this learning of the map and game system to give you a better chance to win is exactly opposite what a good wargame should do.

[ArizonaTank]

I would love to get D-Day at Omaha...... ;)

I would as well..but it suffers from one flaw. Knowledge of the colors and half moons would allow you to not step THERE, but instead, step HERE, to avoid THAT weapon that attacks THERE, but not HERE. Kinda like the old Ambush! series of games. Step on hex H-32, and an MG32 shows up. This defeats the purpose, by gaming the map itself. The soldiers on the beach learned the hard way not to step THERE..and this learning of the map and game system to give you a better chance to win is exactly opposite what a good wargame should do.

If we held every game up to rigorous standards of historical accuracy, there wouldn't be anything left to play...:) 

Board and digital games rarely accurately reflect reality.  I have had the luck in life to play some "real" wargames with real soldiers, and military hardware at government expense.  That experience is like nothing I have seen or played on a board or digitally. 

As you point out where you are talking about 'where to step,' in real life, situational awareness "is the game" (BTW, I was lucky enough that nobody was actually ever actually shooting at me).

Still almost all board based and digital historical wargames have huge flaws when it comes to accurately representing what really happened.  D-Day at Omaha is no exception.

But I love D-Day at Omaha as a historical game.  The things I look for are: 
-Does it teach me anything about history? 
-Is it a fun game?   

D-Day at Omaha has plenty of history lessons, and definitely keeps me entertained.  It is one of the few 'solitaire' games where I almost think I am playing another human....almost...:) 

[rocketman]

I would love to get D-Day at Omaha...... ;)

I would as well..but it suffers from one flaw. Knowledge of the colors and half moons would allow you to not step THERE, but instead, step HERE, to avoid THAT weapon that attacks THERE, but not HERE. Kinda like the old Ambush! series of games. Step on hex H-32, and an MG32 shows up. This defeats the purpose, by gaming the map itself. The soldiers on the beach learned the hard way not to step THERE..and this learning of the map and game system to give you a better chance to win is exactly opposite what a good wargame should do.

If we held every game up to rigorous standards of historical accuracy, there wouldn't be anything left to play...:) 

Board and digital games rarely accurately reflect reality.  I have had the luck in life to play some "real" wargames with real soldiers, and military hardware at government expense.  That experience is like nothing I have seen or played on a board or digitally. 

As you point out where you are talking about 'where to step,' in real life, situational awareness "is the game" (BTW, I was lucky enough that nobody was actually ever actually shooting at me).

Still almost all board based and digital historical wargames have huge flaws when it comes to accurately representing what really happened.  D-Day at Omaha is no exception.

But I love D-Day at Omaha as a historical game.  The things I look for are: 
-Does it teach me anything about history? 
-Is it a fun game?   

D-Day at Omaha has plenty of history lessons, and definitely keeps me entertained.  It is one of the few 'solitaire' games where I almost think I am playing another human....almost...:)

I get what DennisS is saying, but I know so much about Omaha that few things would surprise me. Tarawa on the other hand I know very little about.
@ArizonaTank is that the PC or board game version you speak of?

[Nefaro]

AI?

I thought the the original games were solitaire.  Wouldn't need an AI since the opponent is card-driven by the game rules already.

[bbmike]

In the PC version of Omaha the computer plays as the Germans.

[Nefaro]

In the PC version of Omaha the computer plays as the Germans.

Using the game's built-in opponent rules, right?

I mean.. why go to the trouble of building an inevitably flawed computer AI for a game that already has rules meant to make it a challenge for a single player?  Unless it was viewed as an easier way of doing it, which would be a warning flag that it probably wouldn't be a very challenging AI.

[GJK]

I would love to get D-Day at Omaha...... ;)

I would as well..but it suffers from one flaw. Knowledge of the colors and half moons would allow you to not step THERE, but instead, step HERE, to avoid THAT weapon that attacks THERE, but not HERE. Kinda like the old Ambush! series of games. Step on hex H-32, and an MG32 shows up. This defeats the purpose, by gaming the map itself. The soldiers on the beach learned the hard way not to step THERE..and this learning of the map and game system to give you a better chance to win is exactly opposite what a good wargame should do.

It seems that a computer adaptation could do something that would be hard to replicate in the boardgame- have the hexes with no indicator/symbols until one of your units enter it and if you leave the hex empty for too long after you've entered it, it goes back to blank.

[bbmike]

In the PC version of Omaha the computer plays as the Germans.

Using the game's built-in opponent rules, right?

I mean.. why go to the trouble of building an inevitably flawed computer AI for a game that already has rules meant to make it a challenge for a single player?  Unless it was viewed as an easier way of doing it, which would be a warning flag that it probably wouldn't be a very challenging AI.

True dat.

[Zulu1966]

I would love to get D-Day at Omaha...... ;)

I would as well..but it suffers from one flaw. Knowledge of the colors and half moons would allow you to not step THERE, but instead, step HERE, to avoid THAT weapon that attacks THERE, but not HERE. Kinda like the old Ambush! series of games. Step on hex H-32, and an MG32 shows up. This defeats the purpose, by gaming the map itself. The soldiers on the beach learned the hard way not to step THERE..and this learning of the map and game system to give you a better chance to win is exactly opposite what a good wargame should do.

It seems that a computer adaptation could do something that would be hard to replicate in the boardgame- have the hexes with no indicator/symbols until one of your units enter it and if you leave the hex empty for too long after you've entered it, it goes back to blank.

I think they have changed things in the Tarawa game. There are no dots and it uses a different mechanism to work out  fire, don't have it to hand currently so can't detail it exactly but it is different. Also game uses the rules not an AI to play against you so it's the system that plays not a bespoke AI.

Biggest gripe against the Tarawa game I have is that it doesn't include the two day scenario from the board game. There is a night phase in the board game but I guess that proved  not worth coding into the computer version. They don't say that any where.

Presentation  is OK but I fell like I got half the game without the two day scenario. Tookeep me a while to figure out it wasn't there as the only manual you get are the rules to the board game, though there is some attempt at  in game help.

[MikeGER]

Presentation  is OK but I fell like I got half the game without the two day scenario. Tookeep me a while to figure out it wasn't there as the only manual you get are the rules to the board game, though there is some attempt at  in game help.

IIRC there is a two day scenario in the PC version
here is the text from the help file popup in-game


1.1 Game Overview
- You control the 2nd Marine division assaulting Beito Island in Tarawa Atoll.
- The computer controls the Japanese.
- There are two start points: The First Waves (Turn 1), and the Second Day (Turn 17). Victory checks are performed at the end of turns 10, 15 and 30.
- You need to control Japanese positions with units or Garrisons to win including some positions at the top edge of the map in the latter scenarios.

1.2 Changes from the Board game
- The program enforces the rules of the board game exactly with a few exceptions. The principle one being the board game allows you to choose a unit for a loss while the computer version picks a unit randomly instead. While the computer version follows and enforces all the rules the way random results are generated are different.  The board game used one set of 54 cards that are coded for random events, landing results, Japanese actions, and US target symbols.  The program maintains a common virtual deck for random events and Japanese Fire.  This deck is only shuffled when exhausted.  However for each close combat and Landing phase a separate virtual deck is created. 
- Instead of target symbols each target unit is given a one third chance of being chance to be selected whenever the board uses target symbols. 
- The program randomly selects the affected units whenever the priority check results in more than one eligible unit rather than being by player choice.
- The term Depth and second step are used interchangeably in the program in regards to the second step of Japanese units.

i have Omaha and Tawara the PC versions but not the board games
and hadn't found the time and esp the zen-like leisure state of mind yet to really dig deeper into them ...as they truly derserve :-[
(the time i had went into RAF Lion PC version first (i have the board version too) which i have also from Decision Games )     

- - - -
concerning the 'where to step' debate  about dots 'give it away' 
IMHO, these were long time prepared assaults (and defends) not a meeting engagement or a probe.
so came with a lot of aerial recon and map topography studies before, so its about avoiding multiple overlapping fields of fire ...or in other words the attacker had analysed which spots where supposed to be more saturated, taking into assume that all good fortification positions where optimized to the max by the defender