Atheory's Project: Operation What if Calais 1944

[Ocito80]

I am currently reworking my old Calais_44 scenario that uses the France'40 map to depict the allied invasion through Pas-de-Calais rather than Normandy.

I am currently in the placing the units on the map stage, as the OOB is complete. This will be a large, long scenario allowing for the experience of continual combat in the area.

Below (next post) you will find my conceptual background info, among other things. I look forward to releasing this in the next week or two at the most.



Thanks
Atheory (ocito80)

[Ocito80]

Calais_44_Gold
What-if Scenario: The Allies return to the continent from whence they departed, Dunkirk.
*A journey through the concept and application of developing the scenario.*

It has been debated by some, perhaps many at a certain point in each of their lives, about the possibility of a successful invasion around the Pas-de-Calais region. This would focus on the beaches in and around the port towns of Calais and Dunkirk. The common assessment of these debates revolve around the notion of a stronger German presence and beach defenses. If one were to begin researching this area, as a matter of perspective, it stands to reason that openness to the possibility of an allied success begin to emerge. Obviously, there is no way to state a definitive outcome for it is after all, hypothetical.

What we do know:
Do the allies really need a port?
Dieppe provided the allies with invaluable lessons. One in particular was the hardships associated with assaulting a port town. It is believed this to be one of the driving reasons in selecting the beaches of Normandy, as opposed to attacking Le Havre or Cherbourg outright. For this scenario the same logic is applied. Calais and Dunkirk are not assaulted directly. Instead, the allies land on the beaches flanking the town of Dunkirk. We know supplying by beach is not the preferred method, but it was up to the task in supplying the initial forces. In fact, it was grossly underestimated how much supplies could be off-loaded onto the beaches. This was in part from the success of the Mulberry ports. The follow up forces in combat situations near the end of July were what really placed a strain on this system. The effects of liberating Cherbourg, with the port becoming operational around July 16, would not be felt for some time still.

Were the German forces stronger?
There was a tighter cluster of Divisions around the area, this much is clear. The quality of these forces, like Normandy, are questionable. There were no immediate tanks in the area, unlike the 21st Pz-Div at Normandy. The 2nd Pz-Div was still far South, with the 1st SS Pz-Div and 116th Pz-Div still reforming to the east and west respectively. The main weight of the invasion would fall on the 18.Feld-Div(L) around Dunkirk by the British. This unit turned out to be poor in most respects in combat. Additionally the 48.Infanterie-Divison(bo) would take the brunt of the fighting against the Americans. It is worth noting that at this time, the 19.Feld-Div(L) was in transit to the Italian front, leaving no reserve division immediately behind the 18.Feld-Div(L) or the 48.Inf-Div along the 2.Stellung (or second defensive line)
The question then, in part, becomes can the 18.Feld-Div(L) and 48.Inf-Div(bo) survive long enough behind the beach defenses. We know even with the veteran troops of the 352.Infanterie-Division at Normandy that the wall could not be held without near instant reinforcements. For elsewhere the forces were brushed aside rather quickly. Therefore, this leads us to the underlining sticky point, the beach defenses. We know the density of obstacles and bunkers was higher at Pas-de-Calais than at Normandy. If one were to dive into those numbers though, they aren't as telling as it might suggest. A lot of structures were built in and around the actual towns of Calais and Dunkirk, in addition to many of the large Marine Artillery Battery positions. Next, many of the structures were support structures (troop quarters, communications etc.) and not direct combat positions. These were much more prevalent in the Pas-de-Calais region than at Normandy. With that said, there still lies the fact that bunker density still exists. We know this because the 15th Army had less overall beach frontage to cover than the 7th Army.
Another aspect of the wall is the preponderance of stationary weapons installed along it. Particularly older and often captured guns of all calibers. In some areas, even at Pas-de-Calais there was a shortage of these weapons, and some casemates meant to house these guns remained empty. I would go so far as to argue that the 15th Army had no more of these stationary guns than the 7th Army along the Atlantic Wall. Pas-de-Calais is stated to have more mines in its area, but that doesn't necessarily mean more were used on the beaches. In fact, many were used on the landforts. These outer defensive rings, protected Calais, Dunkirk, Boulogne and even some of the smaller towns from attacks inland. Also, the Marine Batteries like the infamous Todt Battery and others were built up to ensure protection. Wooden stakes, or rather, anti-airborne obstacles were plentiful in the region. I do imagine glider operations would have been very costly. Wooden stakes also were used against landing vessels, and we can reasonably assess more were used here as well. We know at Omaha, the most contested beach at Normandy, landing craft had more damage from rough seas than combat on June 6th. Between Utah and Omaha, just over 50 landing craft were lost out of over 1500 available. This can give us some indication to what one might expect at Pas-de-Calais where I believe that total can be double, and this would still in no way prevent the invasion from continuing apace.

What about Operation Fortitude?
It would still exist, but would encompass five potential landing points - Brittany, Normandy, Pas-de-Calais, Netherlands and Southern France. Patton's fake army would still exist but be stationed in North Africa with the intent to invade southern France. Resources directed towards Italy would shift slightly to building up Sardinia and Corsica with airfields. This fake army would slowly emerge as a real one for Operation Dragoon. Now what would all this have on the overall impact of this scenario, none. There are no what if changes to defenses or unit placements because of this. This is included merely as food for thought.

What about Operation Neptune?
It would shift more resources from the ports of Southern England to Eastern England to accommodate the adjusted path for the ships. Sailing a large armada past the lookouts at Cap-Griz-Nez heights would pose a high risk of early detection.



So what advantages do the Germans still have?
There remains a greater troop density compared to Normandy, and there are lots of artillery. Throw enough bodies and shells at the enemy and just maybe you can stop the allies at the beaches.

What's the Key?
The build-up. Like Normandy, the Germans have little defense in depth. What does exist lay mostly around the port towns (Calais, Dunkirk and Boulogne). Getting off the beach should be problematic like Omaha, however, it is still highly possible to achieve. Thereby, leading us to the build-up of forces for both sides. The land area here between France and Belgium is relatively open and vast. Potentially giving both sides much room to maneuver and provide a different feel to European combat outside the dreaded Bocage country.

Mission of Airborne troops?
At Normandy, they were to guard the flanks as well as take key bridges until the forces could get off the beaches. In Calais_44, their mission is similar in most respects. They will land south of the landing zones to "contain" the area, secure bridges and prevent German reinforcements from reaching the beaches. Between anti-airborne defenses and German reinforcements, casualties among airborne troops could be high. These troops can also be used to help assault the beaches if necessary.

Some liberties were taken with the map and the initial invasion hexes, as the area is not optimized for this region, nor for this purpose.

Scenario Features and or changes in "Gold" version:(in no particular order)
1) Partisans strike! several railway junctions and lines are cut throughout the area.
2) Heavy bombing available later in the scenario if the allied player tries to coordinate their own Cobra type operation.
3) More accurate OOB, and a cleaner one. The first version had different naming conventions. Now they are more uniform throughout.
4) Used the France'40 map for the invasion of the Calais area in 1944. (cool right!)
5) Adjusted unit values to utilize the alternative rules (assault resolution and indirect fire resolution)
6) Updated unit graphics to the news available through the release of the "Gold" version games.
7) Utilizes new unit that merges the Infantry Company with a HW platoon. Adds strength and firepower to the common infantry unit, while still invoking the spirit of the HW company without adding additional units to the map.
8) Everything is historically plausible as was available in 1944, no fantasy weapons, units or events(other than the hypothetical landing at Dunkirk is used.)
9) Some units are understrength, but if rested can recover losses over time. Adjusted pdt file and removed the penalty for understrength units. Allows for the use of understrength units without having to cater to the game mechanics when creating oobs.
10)The German Luftwaffe will be relatively missing, aside from a few recon flights.
11)


Allied Objectives:
The main goal of U.S. Forces is the port city of Antwerp. The 1st Army would land and secure the beach area, followed-up by Patton's 3rd Army who would launch the main thrust for the city. For Britain, the Canadian Army would secure the area while the British Army pushed south. The overarching goal would be when Operation Dragoon is launched, the British army would trap all German forces in France and the 7th Army in southern France would clean up.

German Objectives:
Contain the beaches and inflict massive casualties upon the invading forces. Simple right!


Disclaimer:
I am in no way stating that the Allies could have successfully landed at Pas-de-Calais, nor am I stating the Germans would have thrown them back into the sea. I am merely putting forward elements of material that could suggest the plausibility of a successful landing given what we know in hindsight.

[Ricky B]

Calais_44_Gold
What-if Scenario: The Allies return to the continent from whence they departed, Dunkirk.
*A journey through the concept and application of developing the scenario.*

...
9) Some units are understrength, but if rested can recover losses over time. Adjusted pdt file and removed the penalty for understrength units. Allows for the use of understrength units without having to cater to the game mechanics when creating oobs.
...

So I have seen you make this comment before about the penalty for understrength units. What penalty is that? If it is the infantry strength/effectiveness settings, then that is a benefit to the understrength units, not a penalty. Not sure what else you may be referring to, I am not aware of anything else around unit strengths compared to full strength. So just wondering if you don't understand that usage of values you are changing, before commenting about catering to game mechanics. Of course, many players defy logic and claim penalties when just based on pure math what they want is gameyness too, so anyway no idea her but very curious what you are changing to eliminate a penalty that I know I am very unaware of and haven't seen discussed, as far as I recall.

Rick

[ComradeP]

Just in case you're not aware: alternative assault resolution makes it nearly impossible for infantry units to assault bunkers. Though it's helpful to protect tanks from infantry assaults, it also makes bunkers nearly impervious to assaults.

It would be nice if in a future patch the effects would be split between an optional rule for units that are hard by default, like tanks and an optional rule for units that become hard due to being in strongpoints.

[Ocito80]

@Rick B

I was under the impression that when a unit reaches a certain level strength as determined in the pdt file, it becomes less effective. It's the main reason scenarios generally don't start with reduced strength units.....meaning, as an example, an artillery battalion would generally start with 8/8 guns if it was historically reduced strength instead of having it at 8/12 which would give the unit strength - 66% strength level. Thus being affected by the pdt file. I am merely removing that aspect to allow for the 8/12 version to exist without impairment. I'd rather not quibble over a dislike of the term "penalty" and instead just focus on the mechanics purpose. If I have assessed its purpose incorrectly, I am happy to learn and adjust from it.

@Comrade

Good to know, I will take that under advisement and do some testing before I launch the scenario.

[Ricky B]

@Rick B

I was under the impression that when a unit reaches a certain level strength as determined in the pdt file, it becomes less effective. It's the main reason scenarios generally don't start with reduced strength units.....meaning, as an example, an artillery battalion would generally start with 8/8 guns if it was historically reduced strength instead of having it at 8/12 which would give the unit strength - 66% strength level. Thus being affected by the pdt file. I am merely removing that aspect to allow for the 8/12 version to exist without impairment. I'd rather not quibble over a dislike of the term "penalty" and instead just focus on the mechanics purpose. If I have assessed its purpose incorrectly, I am happy to learn and adjust from it.  

...

Not all of my comments apply to what you said, so please don't worry about that, although as to catering, the entire engine has to be catered to, and the fact it allows adjustment is exactly for catering. But back to penalty, as I noted, I believe you misunderstand the use of the settings, if in fact you are "removing" the values I mentioned. Since you didn't actually address what values you are changing (as noted maybe there is a penalty in play that I am unaware of but then I don't know what PDT values are in play) I will explain what the values I think you are changing actually do, rather than what you noted here.

So for the values I am an referencing, infantry strength and effectiveness, they work this way. The strength is used so that at that strength percentage, the unit fights as if it has the effectiveness percentage of full OOB strength. And then all calcs between 100% and that value are a straightline ratio down to that value's effectiveness, and then below it they converge back to 0.

So from at least one of the games, but I think it is typical of all of them, the strength is set to 70% and the effectiveness to 90%. If a unit is at 70% of full strength, it will actually fight with a firepower of 90% of full strength, or a benefit of 20%. If it is at 85% of full strength, it will fight with an effectiveness of 95%. Then if below 70%, the values start to converge again. If the unit is at 35% of full strength (half of 70%) it will fight at half of 90% or 45%, or a benefit of 10% NOT a penalty. In all cases, the understrength units will benefit, not be penalized, right?

Now if the values were switched around and the strength was 90 and the effectiveness 70, there would be a penalty but the games don't use that. I have no idea if you have been setting your values to 100/100 or 0/0, if you are using these values. If so, it simply means you have removed the benefit to understrength units. If you used anything else where the values don't match, then you would need to apply the above to determine the impact. For example, if you used 100/0, it means the understrength units have no firepower, I believe.

This is all explicitly described in the user manual in this section, and has been in there since the first game: Infantry Fire Effectiveness. Even though I hadn't read it for many years, it stuck with me and I see my example above essentially mirrors what this section states, but with specific numbers rather than the section use of linear interpretation, lol.

Hope this helps.
Rick

[Ocito80]

I understand the point, and it has led me to see the error in my thinking. I was thinking that the mechanic applied to all unit types, but it only effects infantry. I will adjust accordingly.

I will end this by explaining how I viewed the "penalty" in this discussion. It serves no purpose other than to bring closure to this matter.

**
If you have two similar units with the same stats, one has a 200 strength and the other 100. The larger unit is reduced to a strength of 100. Now both units are equal in strength and stats, but now that reduced unit is weaker by the percentage calculated through the pdt values. To me, that is a penalty for the originally larger unit when compared to the other unit.

(Visual aide)
Before Combat
Unit A (same stats) / Unit B (same stats)
Strength 200 / Strength 100
Effectiveness 100% / Effectiveness 100%

After Combat
Unit A / Unit B
Strength 100 (half strength) / Strength 100
Effectiveness 60/70%? / Effectiveness 100%
**

Respectfully
Atheory (Ocito80)

[Ocito80]

After some initial testing, i am confident Alternative assault resolution will work just fine against bunkers. Non-disrupted units can breach, or assault successfully against a pillbox, rather easily given enough assault value is present. The next thing to look out for then is can the allies stay relatively non-disrupted enough to breach the wall through several turns of combat fire.

[Ricky B]

I understand the point, and it has led me to see the error in my thinking. I was thinking that the mechanic applied to all unit types, but it only effects infantry. I will adjust accordingly.

I will end this by explaining how I viewed the "penalty" in this discussion. It serves no purpose other than to bring closure to this matter.

**
If you have two similar units with the same stats, one has a 200 strength and the other 100. The larger unit is reduced to a strength of 100. Now both units are equal in strength and stats, but now that reduced unit is weaker by the percentage calculated through the pdt values. To me, that is a penalty for the originally larger unit when compared to the other unit.

(Visual aide)
Before Combat
Unit A (same stats)       /              Unit B (same stats)
Strength 200                /              Strength 100
Effectiveness 100%       /              Effectiveness 100%

After Combat
Unit A                                   /     Unit B
Strength 100 (half strength)   /      Strength 100
Effectiveness 60/70%?           /      Effectiveness 100%
**

Respectfully
Atheory (Ocito80)

Sorry but I don't believe you are applying this correctly (and I do believe it applies to all units). The effectiveness is applied against full strength, rather than the current strength. So the reduced unit in your example would apply the effectiveness of say 60% against its original strength of 200, and thus fight like there are still 120 men, versus the other unit that will fight like it has - 100 men. So it would be 20% more effective. At least that is how the rule is described. So there aren't two penalties, one for current strength and one for effectiveness. The rule clearly states that the remaining men will keep a higher proportion of the unit firepower in action as they lose men - i.e. more MGs per man.

If I get a chance before the super bowl starts I will set up a test and see what happens, with on map results turned off in order to see the firepower calculated. It could be there is a bug around how it is implemented too, but it should be boosting overall strength not lowering it. I think I tested it 15 years ago and found it to work as I expected, not as you describe.

Regards
Rick

[Ricky B]

So I ran a test and the results match what my expectation, and what the rule states. I tested with:

1. Unit with OOB strength of 494 men, full strength.
2. Unit with OOB strength of 494 men, 247 men strength.
3. Unit with OOB strength of 247, full strength.

Results:

1. Fire=308, Inf=100% (this is the effectiveness mod applied based on strength compared to full OOB strength)
2. Fire=198, Inf=64% - so this unit, at half of OOB strength, is firing at 64% of its full strength value
3. Fire=154, Inf=100%

So you can see that a unit with an OOB value exactly half of another unit's strength, both at full strength, the smaller unit fires with exactly half the strength of the larger unit.

However, the larger unit, fighting at half strength to equal the smaller unit, has a 44 higher firepower rating (benefit) value than the smaller OOB unit, even though the strengths are the same. This is very much in line with my values estimated above, and in direct comparison, shows it is firing with nearly 30% more firepower.