> I wonder if anyone familiar with this game can help
> with a couple of queries that my opponent and I can't
> find any solution for in the rules (or in the errata on
> Grognard).
> Both relating to Airborne Drop Zone counters.
>
> 1) The DZ counters can only be destroyed by assault
> combat - but if it is not stacked with any other unit, how
> does one determine whether it can fire in the second
> round, as it has no efficiency rating?

Ah yes, the DZ questions in ABtV.  We encountered a whole
series of DZ related questions and couldn't get our emails

Isn't there also a question about overrun?

> 2) If the DZ counter is destroyed, it comes back on to the
> board on its reduced side after 2 turns.  Where should it
> be placed though?  Does it have to go in the original setup
> hex, in which case chances are good it will be destroyed
> again immediately; or can an alternative hex be chosen, and
> if so are there any restrictions on the location?

We also encountered this question and after our emails were
not answered, I called GMT to get an answer.

The deal is that the AltDZ must be on the same side (or sides)
of the rivers as the original DZ was, but can be up to 10 or
15 hexes distant.

The way we played, when the DZ was destroyed, we immediately
chose the hex for the AltDZ that was to appear in 2 turns and
placed it in an envelope.  This forces the player to be
somewhat cautious.

> I'd also be interested in any comments on the game

My group played this, then 2 of us read Ryan's great book
_A Bridge too Far_, then the group played VG's _Hell's Highway_.
They are definitely on opposite ends of the game-simulation
spectrum.

We found ABtV to be pretty gamey with little relation to the
events described in Ryan's book.

> and/or series.

Several people have noted that _Operation Mercury_ uses an
improved version of that system and they really liked the
game.

>  As well as this one, I've played (once) Operation
> Shoestring (Guadalcanal), and I've found the system to be
> fun, fairly simple and easy to learn.  AtV is particularly
> good in that each player gets the role of attacker and
> defender in different parts of the map;

Yes it is fun and easy.  It is also not a trivial system,
so there is some depth to it.

> Any thoughts/experience on balance in AtV?  I'm playing
> the germans in the campaign game, and at present seem
> on the way to victory.  But it does seem that the Allies
> have a difficult job to meet the Victory conditions.

We stopped playing the campaign game after the German
player dropped 2 river bridges (non-repairable) and was on
his way to a third. Hell's Highway, in contrast, explicitly
states that although the bridges were blowable, a blown
bridge would end the game for the Allies so the river bridges
can't blow.

If you want to check out a very playable simulation of M-G,
try HH.

> Martin Mills
> m.j.mills@itd.maff.gov.uk

Neil
galarn@ix.netcom.com        near Boston (the New World one)