CONTINUATION OF “FRANCE 1944 D-DAY” AAR

[Curtis Lemay]

The attached screenshot charts squad losses (everything in the equipment list up to machine guns). The gridlines are 10,000 squads. Note that the Germans didn’t really have much of an edge here, despite the benefit of defending. I think that reflects the consequences of both the Allied bombardment power and the broken retreat across France, leaving pockets of trapped foot-bound forces.

[Curtis Lemay]

The attached screenshot charts light weapon losses (machine guns, AT guns, light guns, mortars, AAA guns). The gridlines are 5,000 weapons. The chart somewhat reflects that the Allies just had more of such weapons.

[Curtis Lemay]

The attached screenshot charts artillery losses. The gridlines are 500 weapons. This is the only chart where the German losses exceed the Allied losses. That reflects the fact that the Germans were entirely on the defensive, so Allied rear-area artillery was never engaged by German ground forces.

[Curtis Lemay]

The attached screenshot charts scout car (scout cars & jeeps) losses. The gridlines are 2,000 cars. This chart reflects that the Allies had much more of these cars.

[Curtis Lemay]

The attached screenshot charts transport (horse teams, trucks, APCs, ferries) losses. The gridlines are 5,000 vehicles. This chart reflects that the Allies had more transport.

[Curtis Lemay]

The attached screenshot charts AFV (armored cars, SPAT, Tanks) losses. The gridlines are 5,000 vehicles. This chart again reflects that the Allies had more AFVs. But it also shows the superiority of German armor, and the fact that, as attackers, the Allied losses were focused on their armored elements, by choice.

[Curtis Lemay]

The attached screenshot charts Aircraft losses. The gridlines are 500 planes. This chart reflects that the Allies were suffering losses to both enemy AS and enemy AAA. Also, the first 20 turns were played using TOAW version 3.2, which still had excess AAA lethality. The last 15 turns were played with version 3.3, which significantly reduced that. The three strategic bomber loans are clearly visible on the Allied chart.

[Curtis Lemay]

The attached screenshot charts total losses. The gridlines are 20,000 items. Similar to the loss penalty chart, you can see where the Allied losses increased in the grind to break out, where they slacked off during the sweep across France, where Market-Garden kicked off, and then slacked off.

[Curtis Lemay]

The attached screenshot charts the victory level. The yellow line is the victory level. Grid lines are 500 VPs. Other lines show how it is formed. Blue lines are German; red are Allied; black dashed lines show the level points. There are three Allied lines showing awards, loss penalty, and objectives. The three German lines show the same things for them. The three level points are at 400, 800, and 1200. Note that the two objective lines are mirror images of each other (a gain for the Allies was a loss for the Germans). The Allies had a single award at the start, while the Germans received awards for the Brittany ports and V-Weapon sites. The loss penalties are the same as on the earlier chart.

Clearly, the victory level hovered around the German Overwhelming level for the first half of the game, then rapidly fell to the draw level during the sweep across France. The Market-Garden offensive finally pushed the level positive for the Allies, but not out of the draw level.

[Curtis Lemay]

The attached screenshot shows the final statistics for both sides. Noteworthy is the Allied AFV %-loss of 74.07%. &^%#@* Shermans! %#@&!$ Tigers! This clearly illustrates the best German facility to delay the Allied juggernaut: German defensive positions should always be interlaced with the excellent German armor.

One thing needs to be noted about how I played the game, as it no doubt impacted these figures. I outlawed ant attacks. By that, I mean I always attacked with attacker active strength at least equal to the defender’s defense strength. This had two realistic effects. First, it prevented the Allied player from simply bombarding the German non-armored forces to bits with little cost to themselves. Second, it caused the attack complexity to increase significantly after the initial invasion. This impacted the number of combat rounds the Allies could expect per turn. The Allies averaged 4.5 combat rounds per turn after the first two turns. Had ant attacks been used, the reduction in attack complexity would have allowed the Allies to maintain a much higher number of rounds per turn, thereby unbalancing the game. Exploiting ant unit attacks is a gamey flaw in TOAW that needs to be fixed. Until then, players will have to police themselves.

Edit: The Assault Ratio Rules greatly reduced the need for the rule above in bold.

[Curtis Lemay]

As a scenario designer, whenever a test finishes as a draw, it’s usually a good thing. And the intermediate waypoints tended to agree well with the historical timeline, too. It realistically captured the grinding attrition that characterized Normandy. The Allies correctly arrived at the German defenses in terrible logistical shape after the sweep across France. And the German defenses stiffened right where and when they did historically. The German quality advantage in armor was telling, as was the Allied replacement edge. The players were correctly given realistic operational decisions about attrition, exploitation, commanding a retreat, defense in depth, airborne operations, etc.

But, even as well as it turned out, there are still things to quibble over. The Allies played half the game under the excessive AAA lethality of Version 3.2. For one thing, this wrecked the ability of the heavy bombers to properly assist in the breakout as they should have, resulting in a late breakout. Yet the Allies still ended up on the plus-side of the victory point count in the end. That suggests that, since that flaw was fixed in 3.3, the scenario may still be slightly out of balance in favor of the Allies, and needs a slight adjustment.

To that end, one thing I’ve become concerned about is that I’ve made it too easy to get the extra two divisions for the airborne assault. What I may do is inject a VP penalty for exercising the TO for it – maybe ~ 40 VPs. Then I’ll make it possible to get back those VPs via an equal award for clearing the Schelde and thereby getting the Antwerpen supply point. Meanwhile, I may slightly revise the release schedule for the German 15th Army, since too much of them got away more easily than historically.

I won’t kid you. The scenario is hard – very hard. The Allied decision matrix starts out huge and gets progressively worse, reaching a pinnacle by the start of Market-Garden. The German’s is never as bad, but gets very heavy from the point the breakout begins, with really strategic decisions required that the Allied player never has to face. It’s more like work than fun. The real pleasure of the scenario is received when it’s over and you gauge what you’ve accomplished and experienced. The entire game took 146 days to complete, but if the holidays and work trips are cut out, it drops to 114 days of actual gaming. That’s an average 3.25 days per turn, playing both sides – but the length started out around 2 days per turn and reached about a week per turn towards the end.

But, having played it, I think I have a special understanding of what the Allies really faced in Normandy, what real options they had in the sweep across France, and in Market-Garden. And I think I have a better appreciation of what the German decisions were based upon, too.

Once again, happy operational wargaming!

[Silvanski]

Excellent stuff!![&o]

[Sker]

Really good! Its very helpful for a quite noob player like me. Thanks!