Normandy US OOB errors

[Bioman]

I was just reading a book about the Normandy invasion and found that 2 regiments of the US 2nd Infantry division arrived on Omaha beach on June 7. They were in combat on June 9 near Trevieres without any heavy equipment or artillery support. In the game the division does not arrive until June 12 although their division artillery arrives on June 7.

I wonder if this is an error or a planned move by the developers to make it harder for the Allies to win. I know that casualty figures have been dumbed way down for both sides not only for this game but for the entire series. All you have to read is accounts about how devastating naval gunfire was compared to how ineffective it is in this game to see what I mean.

[Glenn Saunders]

I was just reading a book about the Normandy invasion and found that 2 regiments of the US 2nd Infantry division arrived on Omaha beach on June 7. They were in combat on June 9 near Trevieres without any heavy equipment or artillery support. In the game the division does not arrive until June 12 although their division artillery arrives on June 7.

I wonder if this is an error or a planned move by the developers to make it harder for the Allies to win.

There is nothing PLANNED in the Normandy Game to make anything harder or easier for either side. Nor would I consider this an OOB error although if your info is correct it might be an issue with the order or appearance.

The tables for arrival of allied units at\on the beachhead was very complex as you can imagine and not everthing that was sceduled for a certain time actually arrived at that time. What Wig Graves did when he laid this out was to use a fairly low percentage variable arrival to more or less get the rate of arrival somewhat correct.

As for the specifics of this regt or that regiment, I couldn't say. I will say that Wigs eye for research was pretty detailed and based on info from microfilm archives. SO I would bet he had info that said the arrival are scheduled for the 12th but perhaps this was moved up after - I don't know and I doubt if I asked him he would have the info at his finger tips.

I know that casualty figures have been dumbed way down for both sides not only for this game but for the entire series.

LOL - you know do you :) Funny because I was a playtester back when this game was being designed and I don't recall:

a) you being involved
or
b) any discussion to "dumb causualities way down" by the designers or testers

In fact I suspect the Series is likely a lot bloodier because the game allows you the general to push your troops too hard or harder than you could historically.

All you have to read is accounts about how devastating naval gunfire was compared to how ineffective it is in this game to see what I mean.

...ahh - spoke like a true Navy Man :)

Seriously - you could debate this point - many writers think the naval fire was very effective while others say all they were good for was making some HUGE holes but really didn't deliver results. In fact some say they made the ground hard for the attacker to advance over. Ask the Air Force how effect they were at something like closing the Falaise Gap and they will make it sound like they killed a lot of tanks - but yet new research shows very few confirmed kills, deplednig on whose reaserch you believe. Read George Blackburns books told from the Arty POV and you will find the Arty did all the killing - and after all George was a FOO himself so he ought to know what he is talking about - right?

My point here is you likely have a book that supports what you say - I don't doubt that. But you are tippy toeing around a subject with a lot of opinions.

If you want your Naval Gunfire for example to me more effective than make the numbers in the OOB larger.

Glenn