Briefing
Two Weeks in Normandy The Normandy Campaign, June 6 - June 18, 1944 Version 3.0 (Toaw III) Version 2.31 (Cow) Version 1.2 (Vol I) 1. UNIT COLORS 1.1. US Green on Light Green: U.S. VII Corps Grey on Light Green: U.S. V Corps White on Light Green: U.S. XIX Corps Black on Light Green: U.S. VIII Corps White on Green: U.S. 101st Airborne Blue on Green: U.S. 82d Airborne 1.2. British Green on Tan: British XXX Corps Red on Tan: British I Corps Blue on Tan: British VIII Corps Light Blue on Light Tan: Canadian Red on Tan: British Commando 1.3. Allied Navy Blue on Light Blue: U.S. Navy Black on Light Blue: Commonwealth Navy 1.4. German White on Grey: German Black on Grey: German SS Blue on Grey: German Osttruppen (low quality "volunteers" from Eastern Europe) 2. PARAMETERS The supply radius for both sides is 10 hexes. German force intolerance is set at 50; the static units deployed on the beaches were viewed as essentially expendable. Allied force intolerance is normal (100). The global attrition divider is set at 12. Maximum rounds per attack is set to 4. 3. HOUSE RULE The Allied player is not allowed to place the two Allied heavy bomber units on interdiction. Historically, when the heavy bombers were used tactically at all, they were used for direct carpet-bombing attacks on German units. 4. SPECIAL EVENTS The Allied player gets +30 VPs for controlling each of the following locations: Cherbourg (hex 18, 4) St. Lo (hex 45, 44) Torigni (hex 49, 49) Bourgebus Ridge (within two hexes of 81, 46) The German player gets +30 VPs for controlling each of the following locations at the end of the game: Carentan (hex 36, 30) Foret de Cerisy (hex 55, 38) Pegasus Bridge (hex 83, 35) Locations which give a 30 VP award to one side are marked with asterisks on the map. Locations yielding Allied VPs are in capital letters; locations yielding German VPs are in small letters. The Allied supply level goes up by +3% when the Allied player takes Port-en-Bessein (hex 60,25). This represents the linking of the Commonwealth and American beaches. The Allied supply level goes up by +2% when the Allied player takes Carentan (hex 36, 30). This represents the linking of Utah and Omaha beaches. The Allied supply level goes up by +1% when the Allied player takes each of following locations: Crisbecq (hex 34, 17) Azeville (hex 32, 18) Formigny (hex 53, 27) Bayeux (hex 63, 23) Douvres (hex 78, 30) Houlgate (hex 93, 30) Possession of these places prevents the Germans from keeping the invasion beaches under artillery fire. Note that the Allies did not capture Houlgate until August, with the result that artillery fire from that area significantly limited unloading of supplies on Sword beach. The German supply point at Cherbourg is deactivated when the Allies come within 5 hexes of either Barneville (hex 17, 25) or Les Pieux (hex 9, 14). The Ranger units attached to the U.S. 29th Infantry Division are withdrawn on turn 8. The first U.S. medium bomber unit is withdrawn when Allied forces first come within 10 hexes of St. Lo. The second U.S. medium bomber unit is withdrawn when Allied forces first come within 8 hexes of Portbail or within 3 hexes of Valognes. 5. VERSION 3.0 NOTES Version 3.0 rebalanced the scenario for TOAW III, version 3.2.29.27. This required weakening the Allies, as the many changes made by TOAW III generally worked in their favor. Proficiency ratings in VII Corps dropped slightly, Allied force proficiency was reduced, and Allied turn 1 shock dropped a bit. The German 77th and 91st Divisions were improved somewhat, the 77th Division?s objectives were simplified, and the 352nd Division was encouraged to defend Bayeux a bit more strongly. Finally, and most importantly, the initial Allied supply percentage was dropped moderately. It is now difficult to maintain a full Allied assault using only the initial supply percentage; the Allied player really needs to take the specific locations which increase supply percentage in order to win. The major game play change is the addition of a German supply point at Cherbourg. I have resisted such a supply point in the past, because there was not historically a large stockpile of supplies there. But without a supply point at Cherbourg, German units north of Utah beach tend to retreat southward, which weakens the German defenses. A reasonable compromise is to add the supply point, but deactivate it by event when Cherbourg is cut off from the rest of France. This approach was taken in version 3.0. After the Cherbourg supply point is deactivated, retreating German units may move in confused ways, but this is entirely historical. The 77th Division in particular was hopelessly confused between fighting and dying at Cherbourg (which was clearly what Hitler wanted) and retreating safely southward toward La Haye (which was equally clearly the better move to make). Half of the division eventually ended up retreating in each direction. Another significant game play change is freezing all US paratroop units west of the Merderet River on turn 1. Historically these units had fair-to-poor drops, and were not capable of doing much more than defending the areas they were dropped in. If they are not frozen, it is too easy to move them aggressively toward St. Saveur, a move which these units were much too disorganized to attempt. The next effect is to favor the Germans somewhat by limiting Allied movement westward on turn 1. 6. VERSION 2.31 NOTES Version 2.31, for use in the 2003 Warfare HQ tournament, removed reserve status from units near Carentan and Bayeux. No other changes were made. 7. VERSION 2.3 NOTES The major OB change in version 2.3 is a materially improved order of battle for both the Allies and Germans on Gold, Juno and Sword beaches. It's been three years since I started designing these scenarios, and I've done research at a major university library (the University of Virginia), and it's still amazing how often new order of battle information comes to light. The divisional OBs have been right all along, but it's really hit or miss getting information on the corps level attachments. Also, the OB for the German static divisions deployed on the beaches is a nightmare; they basically took over whatever guns the Germans could manage to produce or shanghai from somewhere else (usually the latter), so standard OB references essentially not useful. In any event, Allied deployment is slightly more accurate on the British beaches. I have given up organizing the 79 Arm Div according to its actual organization, because its units were attached to other formations at the squadron (company) level, and I don't think my information on unit designations is very reliable. Consistently, however, each beach seems to have started with two squadrons of flail tanks and two squadrons of Churchhill AVREs. I've gone with that organization, without bothering to figure out exactly which squadrons went to which beach. Even if I figured that out, it wouldn't fit in the field for the unit name anyway. Regular players will also note that, ahem, the western part of Gold Beach has moved by two hexes. I based the location on what I thought was a reliable map, but in hindsight it really wasn't. Except for that one source, there is general agreement that the Allies landed just west of Arromanches, not on and east of it as prior versions of this scenario suggested. The big improvement is in the German OB on the British beaches. The company level deployment has been essentially correct all along, but I really underestimated the degree to which various forified units were given extra MGs, 75 mm AT guns and especially 50 mm AT guns. 716 Inf Div in particular had a ton of guns, all way outside the formal organization for a static infantry division. Balancewise, the extra German units make it a bit harder for the Allies to get off the beaches, but the extra units from the 79 Arm Div give the Allies a bit of extra strength, so in testing so far the balance is about a wash. As a result of continued human vs. human testing by the good folks at WarfareHQ.com, deployment has been modified west of Utah Beach. The 508th Para regiment of the 82d Airborne, which drops on the far side of the Merderet, has been frozen on turn 1. This regiment had a particularly bad drop, and spent most of the first day simply assembling in sufficient numbers to begin to influence the battle. The 507th and the 508th Para Regiments have both been weakened to better reflect their scattered drops, and German units in the area between St. Saveur and the Merderet have been partly deployed forward. The overall goal here is to discourage human allied players from using the 507th and 508th very aggressively to take bridges and come close to St. Saveur on turn 1. German units have also been deployed more forward, to limit the movement of the 507th. Historically, aggressive attacks west of the Merderet on July 6 were not possible; the paratroops were too scattered, and the German reaction was too quick. The allied heavy bombers have been placed into a new formation, and their supply value has been reduced. This is another attempt to prevent interdiction from unreasonably restricting German movement in the last half of the game. To similar effect is the new house rule against using the heavy bombers on interdiction. 8. VERSION 2.2 NOTES 8.1. Fixing the Scoring Bug All versions of the present scenario before this one suffered from a scoring bug. The +30 VP awards for the special location were awarded based on a "Side X Occupies" event which was triggered only after the last turn. The designer naively assumed that this event fires if the location specified is occupied by the side specified. The event actually fires only if control of the location changed during the last game turn. As a result, the automatic +30 VP awards scored only if the location at issue changed hands on the last turn (turn 12). This was a surprisingly hard bug to find, as the scenario is balanced enough that the AI rarely takes a special location before turn 12. The bug surfaced reguarly, however, in human vs. human games. With help from the event experts in the WarfareHQ.com TOAW forum, the bug has now been fixed. Special thanks to MattyBurn7 for sending me a crucial game save, to Brian "Siberian Heat" King for nagging me into fixing the problem, and to Chris Horn for putting me on the right track to the method which finally worked. Six of the seven VP hexes should now consistently score correctly. The one potential exception is Bourguebus Ridge, which is based on a two hex radius rather than single location. If I use the "new method" on Bourguebus Ridge, the allies lose the extra VPs if the Germans take any hex within two of the central location-- not what we want. The easiest way to code Bourguebus Ridge is actually to use the old logic. This means that the +30 VPs will not score unless the Allies take some hex within 2 of Bourguebus Ridge on turn 12. But I have no reported failures on Bourguebus Ridge under the old logic; it is extremely rare than no hex in the entire 2-hex-radius area changes hands in Allied favor on turn 12. It is still technically possible that a scoring error could occur, but the chance is small to negligible, and the error would only in a complete Allied romp. The scoring should now work correctly. If the scoring in any given game does not function correctly, please feel free to send a game 13 .sav file to BrettT2466@aol.com. I'm committed to making the automatic scoring work right. 8.2. Terrain Changes I should have finally succeeded in changing all of the flooded marsh/bridge hexes into marsh/bridge. A blown bridge in flooded marsh cannot presently be repaired (the engineer unit can't get into the hex). This is ahistorical; all of the bridges here could be (and many were) repaired within the time frame of the game. To the extent that this terrain change hurts the Germans, it should be balanced by the withdrawal of U.S. medium bombers. A few minor road network changes were also made; the primary effect should be to slightly improve Allied supply onto the far side of the Orne river. 8.3. Airpower The designer's intent is that airpower be one important source of Allied strength, but that it not be the all-powerful entity portrayed in some accounts of the fighting. One of the best Normandy books in recent years is Niklas Zetterling's Normandy 1944 (J.J. Fedorowicz Publishing 2000). Zetterling has spent hours poring through the German records on the campaign. The results of his research are many and varied (including a good part of this scenario's German OOB), but one of his major conclusions is that the effectiveness of Allied airpower has been exaggerated. Zetterling was unable to find any indication in German records that substantial numbers of German men and tanks were regularly killed by airpower. For instance, Allied pilots would regularly claim to have killed a certain number of tanks on a particular day; Zetterling could find no indication in German records that tanks were lost at that time. "[N]ot a single example supporting the image of extensive losses being inflicted from Allied air forces in German combat units in Normandy has been found. In every case where reliable data has been found, losses from enemy air are not great." Zetterling at 45. At the operational level portrayed in this scenario, "the destruction caused by air power was modest." Zetterling at 50. Another point, not made by Zetterling but evident in any Allied account of the battle, is that the German were able to move tactically in daylight. Numerous Allied accounts report that unit X took position Y, but then lost it to a German daylight counterattack. Counterattacks, of course, require movement. If the German army was completely unable to move, or to move without heavy casualties, it would not have been able to find such a successful mobile defense. This is not to say that Allied airpower was ineffective. Zetterling concludes that it was a major force in slowing down German movement into the theater. Long distance strategic moves, with everyone strung out on a road for hours on end, were extremely dangerous. Even road movement across wide areas of the front (e.g., German generals in staff cars) was risky in daylight. But short-distance tactical movement, often from one prepared position to another, was still possible in daylight. Another consideration is that the air forces had to be careful about target identification close to the battle lines, a concern which did not apply on interdiction raids deep into the French interior. This scenario's version of Allied airpower was constructed with Zetterling's findings in mind. Prolonged German movement is likely to incur casualties, and airpower is of course effective in support of specific combats. But the scenario is deliberately constructed to permit reasonable tactical movement of German troops without substantial losses to air attack. Revisions to COW since the first release of this scenario have increased the effectiveness of air interdiction. The problem is most acute late in the game, as the diminishing number of German-controlled hexes greatly increases the effectiveness of Allied air interdiction. To reduce the effectiveness of interdiction late in the game, the games now withdraws two U.S. medium bomber units as the Allied advance moves south and west. These units are not actually withdrawn from the theater, but rather are being used to interdict movement in areas off the south edge of the map. 9. VERSION 2.01 NOTES Version 2.01 of the scenario file is exactly the same as version 2.0, except a few cosmetic changes to the map labels. In version 2.0, this documentation file did not contain all of the material in the scenario briefing. In version 2.01, the documentation file includes that material. 10. VERSION 2.0 NOTES Version 2.0 balanced the scenario for COW 1.03. Substantial changes were made in the OB and unit deployment, in accordance with additional research. Better information appeared on the German and American corps and army level units; there are more precise units given, and less general estimates, particularly in the American corps artillery. The list of artillery units (and their weaponry) included in the game should be fairly reliable; the determination of which units were attached to which corps (V vs. VII vs. XIX) is guesswork. German corps artillery is generally reduced, and German corps flak is especially reduced. The reduction is partly offset by a larger and better deployment for III Flak Corps. There are now three objective hexes giving 30 VPs to the Germans. This gives the Germans a greater chance of a decisive victory. Without the 30 VP hexes, the game has a strong tendency to end in a draw. The largest change in the basic structure of the scenario is the addition of the US and UK supply priority units. These units give large supply bonuses to all adjacent units, and smaller supply bonuses to all units within the supply radius (10 hexes). They represent the ability of the US and UK commands to give supply priority to certain areas. These "units" are fictional-- they exist to express a concept (supply priority), and not as actual ground forces-- so they come back immediately up to two times each if destroyed. The 352 Division now minimizes losses for 4 turns after the fall of Colleville. Human German players who want the 352 to defend more rigorously should take note and alter the setting by hand. The two new objective tracks have been used to add a bit more variability to the programmed opponent's battle plans. The variations are described in the scenario text file. Warning: reading the descriptions will give the human player an mild advantage against the AI. A special effort was made in balancing version 2.0 to ensure that the Allies have a reasonable chance to maintain their bridgehead on the far side of the Orne. In computer vs. computer testing, this bridgehead regularly survives. Note, however, that the computer Allied player reinforces the bridgehead historically with the 1st and 4th Special Services Brigades and the 51st Infantry Division. If these forces are used elsewhere, the bridgehead probably will not survive. There are now three objective hexes giving 30 VPs to the Germans. This gives the Germans a greater chance of a decisive victory. Without the 30 VP hexes, the game has a strong tendency to end in a draw. The largest change in the basic structure of the scenario is the addition of the US and UK supply priority units. These units give large supply bonuses to all adjacent units, and smaller supply bonuses to all units within the supply radius (10 hexes). They represent the ability of the US and UK commands to give supply priority to certain areas. These "units" are fictional-- they exist to express a concept (supply priority), and not as actual ground forces-- so they come back immediately up to two times each if destroyed. A special effort was made in balancing version 2.0 to ensure that the Allies have a reasonable chance to maintain their bridgehead on the far side of the Orne. In computer vs. computer testing, this bridgehead regularly survives. Note, however, that the computer Allied player reinforces the bridgehead historically with the 1st and 4th Special Services Brigades and the 51st Infantry Division. If these forces are used elsewhere, the bridgehead probably will not survive. 11. UNIT PROFICIENCIES The unit proficiency ratings for this scenario were set so that roughly historical results are reached when the computer plays itself. The resulting ratings are different in some ways from what the designer originally intended. In particular, ratings for the Commonwealth units are generally lower than ratings for US units of comparable experience. This difference arises largely because the US VII Corps was very aggressively led, while the Commonwealth forces were very conservatively led. I would prefer to balance the scenario by increasing Commonwealth proficiencies, but applying a very stiff victory point penalty for Commonwealth casualties. The system insists, however, that there be one loss tolerance for all allied* forces; and the US loss tolerance at this point in the war was generally high. Likewise, the AI cannot be instructed to play the Commonweath conservatively, but the Americans aggressively. The only way left to balance the scenario (e.g., to prevent Montgomery from surging over Bourgebus Ridge) is to reduce Commonwealth proficiency ratings. 12. VERSION 2.0 PLAYER'S NOTES The big change in version 2.0 is the addition of the two supply units for the Allies. The effect of these units is to give the Allies a supply advantage in areas which the units are present, but a supply disadvantage in other places. The deployment of the supply units is therefore critical. The American supply unit is normally deployed in the Cotentin, to help capture the valuable objectives on the way to Cherbourg. The British unit historically gave supply priority to the Villiers-Bocage operation, with the result that there were not enough supplies available to make a sustained push on Caen. Giving supply priority to the Caen area or even the airhead across the Orne might yield a greater short term gain, but the Germans would have an increased ability to counterattack in the Villiers-Bocage/Caumont area. 13. ADVERTISEMENT Operations on the US and UK beaches alone are the subject of two additional scenarios by the same author, US Normandy and UK Normandy. These scenarios last for 25 one-day turns, as opposed to the 12 turns of the present scenario, and thus cover the subject in more depth. Those who are able to run OpArt 300 scenarios should look for Four Weeks In Normandy, the 25 turn version of the combined game. 14. HISTORICAL NOTES The historical situation is amply discussed in the briefings for US Normandy and UK Normandy, copies of which are included in the text file which accompanies this scenario. These notes will focus mainly upon a few points unique to the combined scenarios. The combined scenario gives players a direct look at the difference between the American and British methods of making war. The British were hampered by a smaller manpower pool and a lower infantry replacement rate; note that their infantry units use primarily Rifle Squads, vs. the American Rifle Squad/RL, and that the replacement rate for the former is much lower. (The rationale for this difference, as related to the deficiency of the British PIAT, is set forth in the notes to UK Normandy). Also, the British and Canadian units face some very stiff opposition. As a result, the Commonwealth forces must move forward cautiously, lest the line dissolve in a cloud of irreplaceable casualties. The Americans face second-line formations, mostly infantry, and can afford to be more aggressive. The first-class defensive terrain on the American front will slow the attack down, but the Americans still rely more on brute force. The British, by contrast, must use a bit more finesse. Operationally, the most substantial new feature provided by the combined scenario is the additional options given to the Allied player by possession of Caumont. Historically, the Allies were rather inactive in this area until at least four weeks after the scenario ends. The Allied player has the option, in the combined scenario, of making a stronger effort. A determined drive southwest, perhaps by the U.S. First Infantry, can threaten Torigni, the vulnerable back door to the much stronger position at St. Lo. Even a weak effort can draw German troops away, making a direct assault on St. Lo easier. Conversely, a drive southeast toward the Villers-Bocage area can add an entire new front to the ground which much be covered by the powerful, but thinly stretched German Panzer divisions. Still another option is to give the British responsibility for garrisoning the area, allowing the Americans to mount a stronger direct attack on St. Lo. While possession of Caumont gives the Allies options, it also gives them liabilities. Difficulty in cooperation between U.S. and British units makes this a good area for German counterattacks. If the area is used for an offensive drive southwest, strong German armored formations (especially the 2d Panzer) can take Caumont behind the attacking forces, cutting them off from supply. A drive southeast is less open to counterattack, but runs into the teeth of stiffer opposition; and if the forces in front of St. Lo are holding well, a minor attack on Caumont from the west can still give the Allies a hard time. Still another Allied option involves the 2d U.S. Armored Division. After stopping a German drive on Carentan, this division historically did little, staying in Army-level reserve throughout the rest of the scenario. Its primary mission, as far as this author can tell, was to serve as a security blanket for General Bradley and General Gerow (head of V Corps), who were worried about a German offensive around Caumont. Keeping the 2d Armored in reserve will protect the Caumont area well, but a riskier strategy might gain more. Committing the 2d Armored to a drive from Caumont would give that attack a powerful punch. Committing the 2d Armored directly in front of St. Lo is also an option. Finally, players can experiment with one of General Eisenhower's ideas: giving the 2d Armored to the British. Eisenhower several times offered the British an American armored division; the 2d Armored was the logical one to send, since it was not committed on the front line after around June 12. Montgomery, seeing this offer as a thinly veiled criticism of British offensive aggressiveness, declined it and ordered renewed British attacks. In fact, these new attacks proved sufficiently predictable that Eisenhower may well have used the offer of the 2d Armored partly for the purpose of encouraging British offensive operations. At its core, however, viewed on purely military terms, Eisenhower's offer was not a bad idea. The British had to attack carefully, because they faced stronger opposition and had a smaller manpower pool (e.g., a lower infantry replacement rate). An American armored division could afford to be more aggressive, because it could replace its losses more easily. The transfer would also have given the Americans a better appreciation for the fighting quality of the Panzer divisions faced by the British, which might have made the Americans a bit less quick to criticize the slower British rate of advance. Brett Turner

Briefing

Two Weeks in Normandy

The Normandy Campaign, June 6 - June 18, 1944

Version 3.0 (Toaw III)
Version 2.31 (Cow)
Version 1.2 (Vol I)

1. UNIT COLORS

1.1. US

Green on Light Green: U.S. VII Corps
Grey on Light Green: U.S. V Corps
White on Light Green: U.S. XIX Corps
Black on Light Green: U.S. VIII Corps
White on Green: U.S. 101st Airborne
Blue on Green: U.S. 82d Airborne

1.2. British

Green on Tan: British XXX Corps
Red on Tan: British I Corps
Blue on Tan: British VIII Corps
Light Blue on Light Tan: Canadian
Red on Tan: British Commando

1.3. Allied Navy

Blue on Light Blue: U.S. Navy
Black on Light Blue: Commonwealth Navy

1.4. German

White on Grey: German
Black on Grey: German SS
Blue on Grey: German Osttruppen (low quality "volunteers" from Eastern Europe)

2. PARAMETERS

The supply radius for both sides is 10 hexes.
German force intolerance is set at 50; the static units deployed on the beaches were viewed as essentially expendable. Allied force intolerance is normal (100).
The global attrition divider is set at 12.
Maximum rounds per attack is set to 4.

3. HOUSE RULE

The Allied player is not allowed to place the two Allied heavy bomber units on interdiction. Historically, when the heavy bombers were used tactically at all, they were used for direct carpet-bombing attacks on German units.

4. SPECIAL EVENTS

The Allied player gets +30 VPs for controlling each of the following locations:

Cherbourg (hex 18, 4)
St. Lo (hex 45, 44)
Torigni (hex 49, 49)
Bourgebus Ridge (within two hexes of 81, 46)

The German player gets +30 VPs for controlling each of the following locations at the end of the game:

Carentan (hex 36, 30)
Foret de Cerisy (hex 55, 38)
Pegasus Bridge (hex 83, 35)

Locations which give a 30 VP award to one side are marked with asterisks on the map. Locations yielding Allied VPs are in capital letters; locations yielding German VPs are in small letters.

The Allied supply level goes up by +3% when the Allied player takes Port-en-Bessein (hex 60,25). This represents the linking of the Commonwealth and American beaches.

The Allied supply level goes up by +2% when the Allied player takes Carentan (hex 36, 30). This represents the linking of Utah and Omaha beaches.

The Allied supply level goes up by +1% when the Allied player takes each of following locations:

Crisbecq (hex 34, 17)
Azeville (hex 32, 18)
Formigny (hex 53, 27)
Bayeux (hex 63, 23)
Douvres (hex 78, 30)
Houlgate (hex 93, 30)

Possession of these places prevents the Germans from keeping the invasion beaches under artillery fire. Note that the Allies did not capture Houlgate until August, with the result that artillery fire from that area significantly limited unloading of supplies on Sword beach.

The German supply point at Cherbourg is deactivated when the Allies come within 5 hexes of either Barneville (hex 17, 25) or Les Pieux (hex 9, 14).

The Ranger units attached to the U.S. 29th Infantry Division are withdrawn on turn 8.

The first U.S. medium bomber unit is withdrawn when Allied forces first come within 10 hexes of St. Lo. The second U.S. medium bomber unit is withdrawn when Allied forces first come within 8 hexes of Portbail or within 3 hexes of Valognes.

5. VERSION 3.0 NOTES

Version 3.0 rebalanced the scenario for TOAW III, version 3.2.29.27. This required weakening the Allies, as the many changes made by TOAW III generally worked in their favor. Proficiency ratings in VII Corps dropped slightly, Allied force proficiency was reduced, and Allied turn 1 shock dropped a bit. The German 77th and 91st Divisions were improved somewhat, the 77th Division?s objectives were simplified, and the 352nd Division was encouraged to defend Bayeux a bit more strongly.

Finally, and most importantly, the initial Allied supply percentage was dropped moderately. It is now difficult to maintain a full Allied assault using only the initial supply percentage; the Allied player really needs to take the specific locations which increase supply percentage in order to win.

The major game play change is the addition of a German supply point at Cherbourg. I have resisted such a supply point in the past, because there was not historically a large stockpile of supplies there. But without a supply point at Cherbourg, German units north of Utah beach tend to retreat southward, which weakens the German defenses. A reasonable compromise is to add the supply point, but deactivate it by event when Cherbourg is cut off from the rest of France. This approach was taken in version 3.0.

After the Cherbourg supply point is deactivated, retreating German units may move in confused ways, but this is entirely historical. The 77th Division in particular was hopelessly confused between fighting and dying at Cherbourg (which was clearly what Hitler wanted) and retreating safely southward toward La Haye (which was equally clearly the better move to make). Half of the division eventually ended up retreating in each direction.

Another significant game play change is freezing all US paratroop units west of the Merderet River on turn 1. Historically these units had fair-to-poor drops, and were not capable of doing much more than defending the areas they were dropped in. If they are not frozen, it is too easy to move them aggressively toward St. Saveur, a move which these units were much too disorganized to attempt. The next effect is to favor the Germans somewhat by limiting Allied movement westward on turn 1.

6. VERSION 2.31 NOTES

Version 2.31, for use in the 2003 Warfare HQ tournament, removed reserve status from units near Carentan and Bayeux. No other changes were made.

7. VERSION 2.3 NOTES

The major OB change in version 2.3 is a materially improved order of battle for both the Allies and Germans on Gold, Juno and Sword beaches. It's been three years since I started designing these scenarios, and I've done research at a major university library (the University of Virginia), and it's still amazing how often new order of battle information comes to light. The divisional OBs have been right all along, but it's really hit or miss getting information on the corps level attachments. Also, the OB for the German static divisions deployed on the beaches is a nightmare; they basically took over whatever guns the Germans could manage to produce or shanghai from somewhere else (usually the latter), so standard OB references essentially not useful.

In any event, Allied deployment is slightly more accurate on the British beaches. I have given up organizing the 79 Arm Div according to its actual organization, because its units were attached to other formations at the squadron (company) level, and I don't think my information on unit designations is very reliable. Consistently, however, each beach seems to have started with two squadrons of flail tanks and two squadrons of Churchhill AVREs. I've gone with that organization, without bothering to figure out exactly which squadrons went to which beach. Even if I figured that out, it wouldn't fit in the field for the unit name anyway.

Regular players will also note that, ahem, the western part of Gold Beach has moved by two hexes. I based the location on what I thought was a reliable map, but in hindsight it really wasn't. Except for that one source, there is general agreement that the Allies landed just west of Arromanches, not on and east of it as prior versions of this scenario suggested.

The big improvement is in the German OB on the British beaches. The company level deployment has been essentially correct all along, but I really underestimated the degree to which various forified units were given extra MGs, 75 mm AT guns and especially 50 mm AT guns. 716 Inf Div in particular had a ton of guns, all way outside the formal organization for a static infantry division.

Balancewise, the extra German units make it a bit harder for the Allies to get off the beaches, but the extra units from the 79 Arm Div give the Allies a bit of extra strength, so in testing so far the balance is about a wash.

As a result of continued human vs. human testing by the good folks at WarfareHQ.com, deployment has been modified west of Utah Beach. The 508th Para regiment of the 82d Airborne, which drops on the far side of the Merderet, has been frozen on turn 1. This regiment had a particularly bad drop, and spent most of the first day simply assembling in sufficient numbers to begin to influence the battle. The 507th and the 508th Para Regiments have both been weakened to better reflect their scattered drops, and German units in the area between St. Saveur and the Merderet have been partly deployed forward. The overall goal here is to discourage human allied players from using the 507th and 508th very aggressively to take bridges and come close to St. Saveur on turn 1. German units have also been deployed more forward, to limit the movement of the 507th. Historically, aggressive attacks west of the Merderet on July 6 were not possible; the paratroops were too scattered, and the German reaction was too quick.

The allied heavy bombers have been placed into a new formation, and their supply value has been reduced. This is another attempt to prevent interdiction from unreasonably restricting German movement in the last half of the game. To similar effect is the new house rule against using the heavy bombers on interdiction.

8. VERSION 2.2 NOTES

8.1. Fixing the Scoring Bug

All versions of the present scenario before this one suffered from a scoring bug. The +30 VP awards for the special location were awarded based on a "Side X Occupies" event which was triggered only after the last turn. The designer naively assumed that this event fires if the location specified is occupied by the side specified. The event actually fires only if control of the location changed during the last game turn. As a result, the automatic +30 VP awards scored only if the location at issue changed hands on the last turn (turn 12). This was a surprisingly hard bug to find, as the scenario is balanced enough that the AI rarely takes a special location before turn 12. The bug surfaced reguarly, however, in human vs. human games.

With help from the event experts in the WarfareHQ.com TOAW forum, the bug has now been fixed. Special thanks to MattyBurn7 for sending me a crucial game save, to Brian "Siberian Heat" King for nagging me into fixing the problem, and to Chris Horn for putting me on the right track to the method which finally worked.

Six of the seven VP hexes should now consistently score correctly. The one potential exception is Bourguebus Ridge, which is based on a two hex radius rather than single location. If I use the "new method" on Bourguebus Ridge, the allies lose the extra VPs if the Germans take any hex within two of the central location-- not what we want. The easiest way to code Bourguebus Ridge is actually to use the old logic. This means that the +30 VPs will not score unless the Allies take some hex within 2 of Bourguebus Ridge on turn 12. But I have no reported failures on Bourguebus Ridge under the old logic; it is extremely rare than no hex in the entire 2-hex-radius area changes hands in Allied favor on turn 12. It is still technically possible that a scoring error could occur, but the chance is small to negligible, and the error would only in a complete Allied romp.

The scoring should now work correctly. If the scoring in any given game does not function correctly, please feel free to send a game 13 *.sav file to BrettT2466@aol.com. I'm committed to making the automatic scoring work right.

8.2. Terrain Changes

I should have finally succeeded in changing all of the flooded marsh/bridge hexes into marsh/bridge. A blown bridge in flooded marsh cannot presently be repaired (the engineer unit can't get into the hex). This is ahistorical; all of the bridges here could be (and many were) repaired within the time frame of the game. To the extent that this terrain change hurts the Germans, it should be balanced by the withdrawal of U.S. medium bombers.

A few minor road network changes were also made; the primary effect should be to slightly improve Allied supply onto the far side of the Orne river.

8.3. Airpower

The designer's intent is that airpower be one important source of Allied strength, but that it not be the all-powerful entity portrayed in some accounts of the fighting. One of the best Normandy books in recent years is Niklas Zetterling's Normandy 1944 (J.J. Fedorowicz Publishing 2000). Zetterling has spent hours poring through the German records on the campaign. The results of his research are many and varied (including a good part of this scenario's German OOB), but one of his major conclusions is that the effectiveness of Allied airpower has been exaggerated. Zetterling was unable to find any indication in German records that substantial numbers of German men and tanks were regularly killed by airpower. For instance, Allied pilots would regularly claim to have killed a certain number of tanks on a particular day; Zetterling could find no indication in German records that tanks were lost at that time. "[N]ot a single example supporting the image of extensive losses being inflicted from Allied air forces in German combat units in Normandy has been found. In every case where reliable data has been found, losses from enemy air are not great." Zetterling at 45. At the operational level portrayed in this scenario, "the destruction caused by air power was modest." Zetterling at 50.

Another point, not made by Zetterling but evident in any Allied account of the battle, is that the German were able to move tactically in daylight. Numerous Allied accounts report that unit X took position Y, but then lost it to a German daylight counterattack. Counterattacks, of course, require movement. If the German army was completely unable to move, or to move without heavy casualties, it would not have been able to find such a successful mobile defense.

This is not to say that Allied airpower was ineffective. Zetterling concludes that it was a major force in slowing down German movement into the theater. Long distance strategic moves, with everyone strung out on a road for hours on end, were extremely dangerous. Even road movement across wide areas of the front (e.g., German generals in staff cars) was risky in daylight. But short-distance tactical movement, often from one prepared position to another, was still possible in daylight. Another consideration is that the air forces had to be careful about target identification close to the battle lines, a concern which did not apply on interdiction raids deep into the French interior.

This scenario's version of Allied airpower was constructed with Zetterling's findings in mind. Prolonged German movement is likely to incur casualties, and airpower is of course effective in support of specific combats. But the scenario is deliberately constructed to permit reasonable tactical movement of German troops without substantial losses to air attack.

Revisions to COW since the first release of this scenario have increased the effectiveness of air interdiction. The problem is most acute late in the game, as the diminishing number of German-controlled hexes greatly increases the effectiveness of Allied air interdiction. To reduce the effectiveness of interdiction late in the game, the games now withdraws two U.S. medium bomber units as the Allied advance moves south and west. These units are not actually withdrawn from the theater, but rather are being used to interdict movement in areas off the south edge of the map.

9. VERSION 2.01 NOTES

Version 2.01 of the scenario file is exactly the same as version 2.0, except a few cosmetic changes to the map labels. In version 2.0, this documentation file did not contain all of the material in the scenario briefing. In version 2.01, the documentation file includes that material.

10. VERSION 2.0 NOTES

Version 2.0 balanced the scenario for COW 1.03.

Substantial changes were made in the OB and unit deployment, in accordance with additional research. Better information appeared on the German and American corps and army level units; there are more precise units given, and less general estimates, particularly in the American corps artillery. The list of artillery units (and their weaponry) included in the game should be fairly reliable; the determination of which units were attached to which corps (V vs. VII vs. XIX) is guesswork. German corps artillery is generally reduced, and German corps flak is especially reduced. The reduction is partly offset by a larger and better deployment for III Flak Corps.

There are now three objective hexes giving 30 VPs to the Germans. This gives the Germans a greater chance of a decisive victory. Without the 30 VP hexes, the game has a strong tendency to end in a draw.

The largest change in the basic structure of the scenario is the addition of the US and UK supply priority units. These units give large supply bonuses to all adjacent units, and smaller supply bonuses to all units within the supply radius (10 hexes). They represent the ability of the US and UK commands to give supply priority to certain areas. These "units" are fictional-- they exist to express a concept (supply priority), and not as actual ground forces-- so they come back immediately up to two times each if destroyed.

The 352 Division now minimizes losses for 4 turns after the fall of Colleville. Human German players who want the 352 to defend more rigorously should take note and alter the setting by hand.

The two new objective tracks have been used to add a bit more variability to the programmed opponent's battle plans. The variations are described in the scenario text file. Warning: reading the descriptions will give the human player an mild advantage against the AI.

A special effort was made in balancing version 2.0 to ensure that the Allies have a reasonable chance to maintain their bridgehead on the far side of the Orne. In computer vs. computer testing, this bridgehead regularly survives. Note, however, that the computer Allied player reinforces the bridgehead historically with the 1st and 4th Special Services Brigades and the 51st Infantry Division. If these forces are used elsewhere, the bridgehead probably will not survive.

11. UNIT PROFICIENCIES

The unit proficiency ratings for this scenario were set so that roughly historical results are reached when the computer plays itself. The resulting ratings are different in some ways from what the designer originally intended. In particular, ratings for the Commonwealth units are generally lower than ratings for US units of comparable experience. This difference arises largely because the US VII Corps was very aggressively led, while the Commonwealth forces were very conservatively led. I would prefer to balance the scenario by increasing Commonwealth proficiencies, but applying a very stiff victory point penalty for Commonwealth casualties. The system insists, however, that there be one loss tolerance for all *allied* forces; and the US loss tolerance at this point in the war was generally high. Likewise, the AI cannot be instructed to play the Commonweath conservatively, but the Americans aggressively. The only way left to balance the scenario (e.g., to prevent Montgomery from surging over Bourgebus Ridge) is to reduce Commonwealth proficiency ratings.

12. VERSION 2.0 PLAYER'S NOTES

The big change in version 2.0 is the addition of the two supply units for the Allies. The effect of these units is to give the Allies a supply advantage in areas which the units are present, but a supply disadvantage in other places. The deployment of the supply units is therefore critical. The American supply unit is normally deployed in the Cotentin, to help capture the valuable objectives on the way to Cherbourg. The British unit historically gave supply priority to the Villiers-Bocage operation, with the result that there were not enough supplies available to make a sustained push on Caen. Giving supply priority to the Caen area or even the airhead across the Orne might yield a greater short term gain, but the Germans would have an increased ability to counterattack in the Villiers-Bocage/Caumont area.

13. ADVERTISEMENT

Operations on the US and UK beaches alone are the subject of two additional scenarios by the same author, US Normandy and UK Normandy. These scenarios last for 25 one-day turns, as opposed to the 12 turns of the present scenario, and thus cover the subject in more depth.

Those who are able to run OpArt 300 scenarios should look for Four Weeks In Normandy, the 25 turn version of the combined game.

14. HISTORICAL NOTES

The historical situation is amply discussed in the briefings for US Normandy and UK Normandy, copies of which are included in the text file which accompanies this scenario. These notes will focus mainly upon a few points unique to the combined scenarios.

The combined scenario gives players a direct look at the difference between the American and British methods of making war. The British were hampered by a smaller manpower pool and a lower infantry replacement rate; note that their infantry units use primarily Rifle Squads, vs. the American Rifle Squad/RL, and that the replacement rate for the former is much lower. (The rationale for this difference, as related to the deficiency of the British PIAT, is set forth in the notes to UK Normandy). Also, the British and Canadian units face some very stiff opposition. As a result, the Commonwealth forces must move forward cautiously, lest the line dissolve in a cloud of irreplaceable casualties. The Americans face second-line formations, mostly infantry, and can afford to be more aggressive. The first-class defensive terrain on the American front will slow the attack down, but the Americans still rely more on brute force. The British, by contrast, must use a bit more finesse.

Operationally, the most substantial new feature provided by the combined scenario is the additional options given to the Allied player by possession of Caumont. Historically, the Allies were rather inactive in this area until at least four weeks after the scenario ends. The Allied player has the option, in the combined scenario, of making a stronger effort. A determined drive southwest, perhaps by the U.S. First Infantry, can threaten Torigni, the vulnerable back door to the much stronger position at St. Lo. Even a weak effort can draw German troops away, making a direct assault on St. Lo easier. Conversely, a drive southeast toward the Villers-Bocage area can add an entire new front to the ground which much be covered by the powerful, but thinly stretched German Panzer divisions. Still another option is to give the British responsibility for garrisoning the area, allowing the Americans to mount a stronger direct attack on St. Lo.

While possession of Caumont gives the Allies options, it also gives them liabilities. Difficulty in cooperation between U.S. and British units makes this a good area for German counterattacks. If the area is used for an offensive drive southwest, strong German armored formations (especially the 2d Panzer) can take Caumont behind the attacking forces, cutting them off from supply. A drive southeast is less open to counterattack, but runs into the teeth of stiffer opposition; and if the forces in front of St. Lo are holding well, a minor attack on Caumont from the west can still give the Allies a hard time.

Still another Allied option involves the 2d U.S. Armored Division. After stopping a German drive on Carentan, this division historically did little, staying in Army-level reserve throughout the rest of the scenario. Its primary mission, as far as this author can tell, was to serve as a security blanket for General Bradley and General Gerow (head of V Corps), who were worried about a German offensive around Caumont. Keeping the 2d Armored in reserve will protect the Caumont area well, but a riskier strategy might gain more. Committing the 2d Armored to a drive from Caumont would give that attack a powerful punch. Committing the 2d Armored directly in front of St. Lo is also an option.

Finally, players can experiment with one of General Eisenhower's ideas: giving the 2d Armored to the British. Eisenhower several times offered the British an American armored division; the 2d Armored was the logical one to send, since it was not committed on the front line after around June 12. Montgomery, seeing this offer as a thinly veiled criticism of British offensive aggressiveness, declined it and ordered renewed British attacks. In fact, these new attacks proved sufficiently predictable that Eisenhower may well have used the offer of the 2d Armored partly for the purpose of encouraging British offensive operations.

At its core, however, viewed on purely military terms, Eisenhower's offer was not a bad idea. The British had to attack carefully, because they faced stronger opposition and had a smaller manpower pool (e.g., a lower infantry replacement rate). An American armored division could afford to be more aggressive, because it could replace its losses more easily. The transfer would also have given the Americans a better appreciation for the fighting quality of the Panzer divisions faced by the British, which might have made the Americans a bit less quick to criticize the slower British rate of advance.

Brett Turner