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

[Liquid_Sky]

The allies breaking out is not much of a problem, as they don't have the units to exploit a break out. And in the mid game, the Germans will outnumber and out-quality them...so it is not in the allied interests to be spread out all over the map...unless they can reach the supply centers in the far south. (Very doubtful).

What will happen, is the Germans will retreat until the bad weather, then form a line. The British cannot break out at Caen, as the Germans have terrain and quality. And the Americans really have no where to go...and have to worry about cutting off the peninsula...

When I first started playing I was alarmed at the amount of damage I was taking from air interdiction...but then realized that it didn't actually matter. My units would be hit moving up the roads, and be be slowed/damaged from it...but I would spend a few turns near the front, and let them regain their strength. I did lose outright some artillery units that I was evacing from the peninsula, though. The end result is maybe a day delay before the unit can be put in the front line.

[Lowlander]

Well shoot me down in flames.
I know all the Alt scenarios for all the games use the recommended rules as set out by Ed, as is the case here.
However the Normandy campaign as designed is the ONLY game in the series which I am aware of which uses all four alt resolution rules as default, which maybe alien to people who have played other games in the series.
So my question is why was three alt rules dropped and only one made the cut.
P.S. maybe I've lost the plot here and am out on a tangent, please be gentle.

[Volcano Man]

Well shoot me down in flames.
I know all the Alt scenarios for all the games use the recommended rules as set out by Ed, as is the case here.
However the Normandy campaign as designed is the ONLY game in the series which I am aware of which uses all four alt resolution rules as default, which maybe alien to people who have played other games in the series.
So my question is why was three alt rules dropped and only one made the cut.
P.S. maybe I've lost the plot here and am out on a tangent, please be gentle.

Good question. The deal was, that original game was designed around all the Alternative Resolution rules, mainly because of the small level units. IIRC, this was sort of a thing that was adopted over time because the stock game produced little in the way of casualties once all the smaller units began firing at each other, which seemed like an exercise in futility, and this was made even worse by the relatively low attack values of old. The _Alt drops all but one Alternative Resolution rule because it was deemed that they are no longer needed because of the higher attack ratings of the units. Alt Assault Resolution is still required because there are some range 0 hard attack values, plus IMO, I think it establishes the hard vs. soft relationship better in assaults.

That said, you can try it with the other Alternative Resolution rules in effect, the Alt notes state that those recommended rules should be mandatory, and anything beyond that is your personal preference. That said, with Alternative Resolution rules all on, you may likely get unintentionally high casualty rates from artillery, for example, because they are generally more powerful. All I can really say is that the _Alt values were made with the suggested rules in mind. :)

---

The allies breaking out is not much of a problem, as they don't have the units to exploit a break out. And in the mid game, the Germans will outnumber and out-quality them...so it is not in the allied interests to be spread out all over the map...unless they can reach the supply centers in the far south. (Very doubtful).

What will happen, is the Germans will retreat until the bad weather, then form a line. The British cannot break out at Caen, as the Germans have terrain and quality. And the Americans really have no where to go...and have to worry about cutting off the peninsula...

Yes, I think that sums up the historical situation as well, although not quite so bleak of course. Hopefully the recent changes help out a little there, and the German armor isn't quite so superior over the allied armor now with the reduction in HA power (it still is superior, but not excessively so).

I just think the 250 turns of the campaign should have a historical objective in mind for the Allies:

Phase 1) Get off the beach (obviously)
Phase 2) Link the beachheads
Phase 3) Cut off Cherbourg
Phase 4) Capture Cherbourg
Phase 5) Hold on to whatever you can, and push wherever possible while the clock runs out.

I think it best to think of Normandy '44 more as a World War I type campaign in that there should really only be limited objectives once the sides fortify.

In 250 turns there shouldn't be any breakthroughs. I *think* if the Allies can achieve a historical situation by turn 250 of the standard campaign then they should get a victory. If they do not or cannot, then someone please tell me the ending VP level so I can fix that. However, once we start talking about the 750 turn monster then that is a whole different ball of wax. I don't think anyone in the history of PzC has ever played that one to completion, stock or otherwise (someone correct me if I am wrong!). So what happens after turn 250 to 300++ is anyone's best guess. The carpet bombers may help crush the German fortified line, or should. But I have never gotten that far, so I wouldn't know. :o Of course we have to keep in mind that it required this type of firepower to break the German line once it solidified, so this should (and does IMO) translate into the situation in the game.

When I first started playing I was alarmed at the amount of damage I was taking from air interdiction...but then realized that it didn't actually matter. My units would be hit moving up the roads, and be be slowed/damaged from it...but I would spend a few turns near the front, and let them regain their strength. I did lose outright some artillery units that I was evacing from the peninsula, though. The end result is maybe a day delay before the unit can be put in the front line.

Yes indeed, and that is precisely the point of interdiction. I think the old way that everyone hated was when units would get hit in just about ever hex, and were often destroyed to the man, thereby preventing all movement. However, I believe the current interdiction (now at 45% probability) is meant to have a more historical purpose: hindrance. If the Germans have to rest interdicted units for a day, then that is good, it is out of the fight for a moment which may be critical.

In a game I am playing at the moment (using the latest _Alt), the German Sturm Btl that starts SE of Cherbourg was moving south along the road and got interdicted a few times along the way (three turns of movement to the front, or so). One unit was disrupted and stuck on a ridge which happened to have LOS to other Allied units where it was then hit by P-38s and lost half its strength. That unit is essentially out of the fight now for possibly a week or so before it will be effective. Several other units were hit and slowed as well, and the result was one company getting to the front "on time" while the others were re-routed or slowed. The entire battalion is scattered and is of various fatigue and strength level now, so the interdiction was effective. My German Panzer IVs from the 21st Pz Div were hit once losing several tanks, which was enough to cause me to deploy them and move tactically from that point on. Successfully slowed, but safe.

I think this is really the fine balance to strive for: interdiction that isn't Gulf War '91 "highway of death" type of destruction and frequency, but rather at a level that is noticeable, moderately annoying, and a hindrance. Anything beyond that gets into the realm of completely frustrating, and to the degree that the Germans cannot mount a defense effectively (which was an early problem in the stock game before interdiction was adjusted there too).

[Lowlander]

Thanks for taking the time to explain the reasons behind the changes to the stock campaign game.

[FM WarB]

Why is German Infantry rated 6 Soft attack, same as Brits, with Amis 7 when many German IDs were overstocked with MGs according to Zetterling?

[Volcano Man]

Why is German Infantry rated 6 Soft attack, same as Brits, with Amis 7 when many German IDs were overstocked with MGs according to Zetterling?

Well, that is a bit of a tricky subject. The Brits had about the same number of LMGs by then, as did the Americans, when you factor in the Bren and BAR respectfully, (and the M1911 .30 cal LMG as well). In that regard, they had no more such weapons than the latter. Of course neither one of these are the equal of the MG34, but then again, we begin to talk about quantity of weapons, which I think the Germans employed these at squad level, as opposed to team level for Bren and BAR. We are also talking about 1943-1944 Grenadier infantry units here too, which basically saw an increase in AT weaponry, presumably at the expense of some LMGs (because the pre-1943 rifle infantry have much more soft attack at 8, but less AT capability).

That is the nearest I can tell. Other than that, all I can say is that is how the numbers came out of the McNamara's tables. :o

[Elxaime]

How does one fight enemy tanks under the McNamara values? This has always flummoxed me. I am talking about real tanks like the PzKw IV, not the French 1940 make-shifts. Under the McNamara values, it seems that tanks can only be affected by:

- other tanks with decent hard attack values
- decent enemy AT guns
- the heaviest naval guns

As to the others:

Infantry - is it a valid tactic to assault enemy armor in close terrain if they don't have infantry supports? The armor assault values are pretty high and I am confused as to how the "0" hard values work under the alt assault rules. Maybe an example or two would help. Otherwise, it seems that a valid tactic is to mass huge stacks of tanks, even in bocage or cities, without infantry support and they basically become invulnerable to anything except another enemy tank super stack.

Artillery - except for the super heavy guns, artillery seems to have no impact at all on enemy armor. This seems strange since battle reports from history report time and again US medium artillery breaking up German armored thrusts by forcing them to button up, dismount or by disabling tracks, communications or other vehicle systems (you can make a tank combat inefficient without holing its main armor). Isn't the anti-tank properties of artillery given short-shrift under McNamara? Or am I missing something?

Thanks for any guidance here. I have had mixed feelings on the way McNamara works with armor, especially how it makes Tigers and Panthers invulnerable Gods of War, but maybe I am missing the bigger picture.

[Volcano Man]

Well, I believe the problem isn't so much with the ratings, it is more to do with the quantity of these tanks in Normandy '44 in general. I mean, each Panzer division seems to have one battalion of Panthers, and each of these battalions are in the 60 to 70 tank strength range, which I wonder how correct that is. I mean, 76 tanks in a battalion is full strength, but surely their actual strength was not full. Anyone have the strengths of these Panther battalions at the time they entered the line? I would like to guess that they probably went into battle with less than 100% strength and perhaps their arrivals should reflect that.

But ignoring their abundance, which could be an issue already, and just answering the question without that in mind:

Basically, yes, you deal with them with other tanks and AT guns.

I just experimented with it myself, placing 50 Panther tanks (I/SS.Pz.12 -- A quality) into a single hex, combined, and fired on a British infantry battalion in TRENCH hex + Village (-70%). First shot, 6 men. Second shot, 14 men. Third shot, 4 men. This isn't that severe in the situation here, of course you don't want them sitting out in the open getting shot obviously, as they would rightly get decimated.

Repeating the example above, I had the 50 Panthers assault the dug in battalion and the result was 1 tank lost to 14 men killed. Considering that 1 tank essentially = 10 men, this isn't what I would call a steam roll (that is, by forcing into the terrain by direct assault without disruption first).

[AT guns] In the example mentioned above with the "super stack of 50 SS Panther tanks, presumably the Allied player should recognize this over time, and counter. I just ran a test -- where are you 17 pounder AT guns? One AT battalion numbers 32 such guns, and I placed them in the path of the Panther battalion and killed 6 tanks per turn, and the Panthers killed a gun in reply in a turn (the guns were dug in the same TRENCH/villiage hex).

[Tanks] In the same example above, the combined battalion of 30 Sherman II "The Greys" (B quality) with 10 tanks of its VC Firefly tanks (40 tanks total) countered the Panthers and killed 2 tanks in one shot, then another, and so forth. Bringing up the 44 RTR and 3 CLY repeated the pattern (comprising the full 4th Arm Bde) to the point where the 50 tank Panther battalion lost 10 tanks in the single turn, was disrupted, and had fatigue of 156.

The opponent should recognize where the large tank unit is, and understand that his tanks are consolidated in that place, and counter in like kind? Especially since the Germans, apparently attacking in your example, would be moving into the enemy tanks countering from fortified positions? If anything you should certainly keep your tanks in maybe 15 to 20 tank units to be very effective, but if you combine too many together then you only serve to make yourself vulnerable to isolation because, for example, you are pushing forward into the enemy by assaults.

Other than that, I did mass artillery fire in the area on the 50 Panther battalion and was about to kill 3, with about 6 barrages of 3 and 5 HA rated guns, so you can kill the tanks with artillery, but of course you cannot rely on them to do so -- they are supplemental to the above, and keep them fatigue accumulation on (which is very important).

This then brings us to infantry: and unfortunately infantry just have to sit in the path of tanks and get shot at. Where they kill tanks is when the tanks assault to take the terrain they sit in. I understand that this isn't popular with a lot of people, of course.

//////////////////////

Like I said though, I think the real issue in the long run is the quantity of these vehicles available to the Germans. I just don't really believe that they actually had these 100% full strength Panther battalions moving into the line. What about air interdiction before they entered the map? What about breakdowns along the way from their long marches into the map? What about maintenance failures before the tanks actually departed from their original locations (which is an inevitable fact of armor, you always have some down for maintenance, even when nothing is going on). It could very well be that these battalions should be lowered to 80% once they arrive as reinforcement, which would put them at 61 tanks instead of 76, which will make a huge difference in the long run, especially since they never really recover their full strength.

Here are two examples --in this case regarding the 2nd Panzer Division:

"Due to this, to damage and delays caused by the action of groups of partisans and allied air raids, the Division did not reach the front in Normandy until July." --Wiki

...regarding the 9th SS Panzer Division:

"Hohenstaufen suffered losses from Allied fighter bombers during its move to Normandy, delaying its arrival until 26 June 1944." --Wiki

That implies that these divisions did NOT arrive at full strength. Maybe they arrived at 70% for all we know, but 80% seems reasonable. This can be assumed as the norm by any of these panzer divisions that arrived from off-map sources in Calais IMO, so it makes perfect sense to probably reduce not just the Panther battalion arrival strength but the entire division's arrival strength.

Then we have unit quality levels (morale). Who is to say that the 9th SS Panzer Division shouldn't be B quality instead of A? Maybe some other units could be reduced as well. The 1st SS Panzer Division is rated as C, for example and in the stock game, Wittman's own SS.Pz.101 is rated at B in the OOB for that matter. I tend to limit the liberal assignment of A quality ratings to Germans divisions in the Alt anyway, reserving it only for truly elite formations because, generally speaking, it is tendency in most PzC to rate the Germans too highly to compensate for their mediocre stock combat ratings. Combined with the reducing of on-map starting strength of the tank battalions (to 80%) to compensate for maintenance failures and pre-map entering air interdiction, and I think we have the real solution.

Anyway, these are the things that have to be discussed. Having played with the McNamara values for some time, I just don't see them as the cause of the super-tank stack concern here, I think the real problem is the starting strength and the quality.

Hmm yes, I make make these changes in the next update, one day when I am bored. ;)

[noob]

Is it possible to add some text to all the scenario descriptions, informing players which side is the local side, preferably at the start of the text.

[Volcano Man]

Is it possible to add some text to all the scenario descriptions, informing players which side is the local side, preferably at the start of the text.

Sorry but no, I generally do not touch the briefing from its original in the stock game. :( This involves too much cutting and pasting. You can generally assume that in most cases the side that starts first in the campaign scenario is the same on in each of the other scenarios, or at least this is usually the case.