Updated Normandy'44_Alt (third time, 13 AUG)

[ComradeP]

Reload times, or the efficiency with which a crew could actually operate a vehicle by its design are sadly often not taken into account in wargames.

An elite crew would not be significantly more efficient than a mediocre one if it has to work in a cramped vehicle and turret, with limited visibility and no 2-way radio.

Similarly, rocket/projectile launchers are also more efficient than they would be in a tactical game because their longer reload times compared to regular artillery are not represented.

I was just wondering if the performance of the actual vehicle was abstracted somehow in its HA/SA values.

Regarding my comments on interdiction, I meant those as a reply to Volcano Man's intention of lowering starting strength to account for interdiction and breakdowns for all German reinforcements.

As the units arriving from the south, if they arrive on the edge of the map, would have to drive up to the front, they would take breakdown losses and interdiction losses whilst driving there. The units from the Calais area would not take those losses because they arrive much closer to the front, so it makes sense to decrease their starting strength further. Overlord wargames I've played that include interdiction losses of some sort tend to be more lenient to the German reinforcements from the south for that reason, because they still have to drive to the frontline instead of arriving more or less next to it on most maps due to arriving east of Caen.

Also, regarding breakdowns and older equipment: wouldn't the fact that many German divisions were rebuild mean that their equipment is fairly new? The campaign is fairly short, movement is limited, roads are reasonable to good, and there are numerous depots in the greater Normandy area that can supply the workshops. That should limit the amount of breakdowns.

As far as I'm aware, both the Americans and Germans did their best to repair tanks in the field, but according to Mongomery, tank losses were preferable over infantry losses, and there was a surplus of tanks. I have no direct knowledge of the British doctrine for repairing tanks, but I could imagine that a surplus of tanks could mean that more replacements are send over, instead of crews trying to fix tanks that require extensive maintenance or that won't function up to 100% anymore due to previous damage.

Regarding unit quality: the experience of units from previous battles isn't a guarantee for a good performance. British veterans from 8th Army didn't all perform well, particularly 7th Armoured. Based on their experience, that shouldn't be the case. Likewise, American units, experienced or not, all had difficulties with dealing with the bocage and flooded terrain because they were not trained for that, so their initial performance was not what you would expect from well trained and experienced units due to having to get used to a different kind of fighting.

On the other hand, mediocre German formations that were trained for battles in the hedgerows or flooded parts of the Cotentin peninsula or anti-paratrooper operations could perform better than you'd normally expect. Basing unit quality on the actual performance of a unit during a battle would also remove the extremes/overrated units.