Map, stacking and localities - opinions

[Adam Parker]

In the "issues" forum Pumba posted some corrections to map names. He also wrote:

ORIGINAL: Pumba1968

IMHO the BIG mistake concerns the city of Grandcamp located in the department of Calvados. Grandchamp does effectively exist,but it is located in the department of Morbihan which is off game map more than 150 km away...

This is very intersting Pumba. I read a reference to "departments" the other day. So this term is actually a French local government boundary? What else of interest to general Normandy life and organization can you give a hint to? [:)] I read for example that at present, parts of the bocage no longer exist, having been demolished for rural expansion?

Btw, what do you think of the road network in the game? St Mere Eglise (hope I've spelt that right [:D] ) was meant to be the vital north-south route along the Cotentin. However, so many roads seem to exist though Valognes and then further south to the west of Carentan itself, that St Mere doesn't seem really relevant. It personally seems better to have landed the 82nd at Valognes and the 101st at Carentan given the way the map is structured.

Do you think the road network is too generous in BiN? What is your opinion also of the stacking abilities in marsh, towns and bocage? I know that's a lot to throw at you! [:D]

Just really curious for an informed opinion. For as we know a single FJ regiment historically held onto Carentan for roughly 6 game turns before the 101st with armor took it and the 17thSS then tried to take it back! In the game however, the region becomes a massive mutli-divisional magnet. I'm wondering if the road net and stacking limits overly contribute to this, possibly ahistorically?

I fired up Panzer Campaigns Normandy last night and took the Utah scenario for a whirl out of curiousity. Two things were of note: At the battalion level it is much easier to understand the battle of the 101stAB vs the 6thFJ Regiment. Also Carentan is depicted as a very small town spanning only 1 hex - ie: 1km. This likely gels with BiN if hexes are truly meant to be 2km there. But still doesn't explain the mass of Allied and Axis divisions that congeal in that area!

Thanks mate [:)]
Adam.

[freeboy]

Regardingthe mass of Divisions it is in regard to the scenario designers ideas on supply, ie therre is the basic supply, beans and bullets and there is replacement supply. In the historical scenario until the two beaches are linked no replacement supply gets to those troops on the other side and advancing on Cherbourge,sp? is not a good idea...
Allies have to have it, Germans need to defend it.. much different in my free landing scenario games...

[Clipper1968]

ORIGINAL: Pumba1968

IMHO the BIG mistake concerns the city of Grandcamp located in the department of Calvados. Grandchamp does effectively exist,but it is located in the department of Morbihan which is off game map more than 150 km away...

one presicion about this issue:
the location is correct,the town is located on the coast but the name of Grandchamps has been used instead of Grandcamp.

This is very intersting Pumba. I read a reference to "departments" the other day. So this term is actually a French local government boundary? What else of interest to general Normandy life and organization can you give a hint to? [:)] I read for example that at present, parts of the bocage no longer exist, having been demolished for rural expansion?

The French metropolitan territory including Corsica(ah! those Corsicans...[:D]but the Emperor was born out there!Vive l'Empereur![:D]) is divided in 95 departments which are effectively a domestic boundaries.We are a centralized country so all the order are coming from the capital(Paris).Hopefully thanks to the EU,the 22 regions which regroup several departments will get progressively their autonomy for the best...
To be honest Normandy/Normandie[:D] is not an area that I know very well:I am a city dweller,a Parisian.I have been out there several times going with my US relatives who wanted to visit the DDay beaches and some cemeteries.
You are correct about the bocage that has completely dissappeared in order to improve the extensive agriculture.
If the Germans come back they will not be able to hide behind it...[:D]
Unfortunately it has generated much more pollution for the sheet of water because of those damned Norman cows.

So it is late overhere and I need to go to sleep.Then I will answer to your others questions about BiN on tomorrow;but it is already tomorrow...[;)]

BTW French rugby team has defeated the Wallabies...[;)]but don't worry we will defeat the All Blacks on the next week![8D]
Melbourne is really a nice place.[:)]I have been out there one time.

Good night.

[Adam Parker]

ORIGINAL: freeboy

... In the historical scenario until the two beaches are linked no replacement supply gets to those troops on the other side and advancing on Cherbourge,sp? is not a good idea...

I follow you. Actually, I didn't realise the hold on replacements at Utah without a path to the Mulberries at Omaha. Makes good sense.

Still (and this is really the only major breach from history in this game) cutting the Cotentin and taking Carentan are much harder feats to pull off than 1944.

The Germans historically placed a far greater value on Cherbourg as opposed to Carentan. In the current design, this interest is flipped with little if any German desire to hold Cherbourg at all. In fact, its capture is worth very little to the game and few German units are ever trapped in the Cotentin itself. Cherbourg was decreed a do-or-die fortress as we know and those on the Eastern Front understood what this meant if disobeyed!

I actually think that the answer may rest with doubling or quadruppling the victory value of Cherbourg and making Carentan a non-victory hex. Let the players work out how to link Utah and Omaha or defend that zone, if they think it is relevant to their cause. The Germans would be better protecting Cherbourg and holding a supply line to it open rather than stopping the Allied link-up.

Another answer could be ensuring that Static Divisions remain static! Right now they're flooding out of the Cotentin [;)]

[Ron]

I question the idea that the Germans didn't think Carentan was vital or important. In fact, Rommel considered it critical and ordered it to be defended by the II Parachute Corps from Brittany and the 17th SS Panzergrenadier Division. If not for the delay imposed by Air Interdiction and Resistance, they would have made its capture much more difficult. Historically the 17th SS did attempt to secure/retake Carentan but failed (read massive air/naval support) like every other German countermeasure at that time.



Ron

[Adam Parker]

Gotta check some sources later but remember, 3-4 ID's held north of Valognes and only the 6th FJ Regiment held Carentan. Whilst this later was a crack unit next to its bretheren, a single regiment was all it was.

Going from memory the 17thSS was under-manned and under-equipped but still not the town's garrison. Pumba could probably tell us better but Carentan "was" a small, marsh-hemmed town.

Your point of the naval interdiction btw is a huge one - no naval fire passes anywhere near Carentan in the game - nor for that matter owing to the map can we apply naval fire to Cherbourg!

In Peter Tsouras' "Distaster at DDay" he writes his alternate history by giving the Germans a change in placing the Das Reich I believe, at Isigny to thereby threatening both Utah and Omaha.

Freeboy's point about the game linking replacements for Utah to unifying the US beaches is a good one. However, the design seems to do this at the expense of Cherbourg - a mandatory holding as designated by Adolf.

Btw my statement was:

The Germans historically placed a far greater value on Cherbourg as opposed to Carentan.

The Cotentin offered the Allies no strategic flank, only a death trap for whomever it cut-off. Hence Monty demanded Utah from COSSAC for its port and nothing else.

[Ron]

Well it stands to reason that initially, before the Allied landings, the Germans would consider Cherbourg, a major port, to be important and worth defending. Afterall, they had the whole French coastline to consider and not near enough manpower to adequately cover everything. Once the Allies landed and made their intentions clear then the military mind sees the vital ground to defend, hence Rommel's order for an entire Corps and a Pz Division to defend and hold Carentan.

As for BIN's ability to reflect history regarding the quick capture of Carentan, well it can be done depending on the placement of the 101st Airborne and the Allied player's intentions/aggressiveness/play etc. If it were a sure deal that Carentan falls by June 13 then BIN wouldn't be much of a 'game' would it?

Yes there is one hex where the Allied Navy can destroy the fortifications of Carentan, suprised you haven't discovered it yet!

Yes the Germans can give up Cherbourg easily and early if they wish, but then there are serious consequences to consider. Namely the VPs for Valognes and Cherbourg for starters. Then more importantly, the whole might of the US forces in the Cotentin will very shortly thereafter be 'facing' South against the numerous, but none-to-strong, German defenders. As a German defender I know I would want to avoid that situation for as long as possible.

Cheers,



Ron

[freeboy]

The Germans historically placed a far greater value on Cherbourg as opposed to Carentan. In the current design, this interest is flipped with little if any German desire to hold Cherbourg at all

But, in hindsight it was of little value, having been totally destroyed... the game designers allow for that.. not hamstringing the German to a stupid MUST in the german thinking

[Adam Parker]

ORIGINAL: Ron
Yes there is one hex where the Allied Navy can destroy the fortifications of Carentan, suprised you haven't discovered it yet!

You're surprised - I'm surprised [:D] Man, this is probably the most useful post in a game I've read! I'm lookin'. I'm lookin! Thanks.

ORIGINAL: Ron
Well it stands to reason that initially, before the Allied landings, the Germans would consider Cherbourg, a major port, to be important and worth defending.

Well, this was more a by-product of the anti-Rommel sentiment too with Rundsted and Schweppenburg both prefering a static defence garrisoning every port from Brittany to Pas de Calais (the panzers of course held back in reserve). Once the invasion started, the Fuhrer then froze these units in place decreeing Cherbourg a "fortress" - as was his behavior by now on the Eastern Front. Retreat from a fortress of course was not an option.

ORIGINAL: Ron
Once the Allies landed and made their intentions clear then the military mind sees the vital ground to defend, hence Rommel's order for an entire Corps and a Pz Division to defend and hold Carentan.

Not really, the fire brigade in the area became the 17thSS GvB. Thing is the 17th was not a fully functioning division as such and only 1 regiment - the 34th I believe, actually made the counter-attack against the 101stAB once Carentan had fallen. Therefore we are still talking a "Battle of Carentan" with the defenders being remnants of the 6thFJ reinforced by an understrength regiment of the 17thSS - not the entire PzG division.

From recent memory, the 17thSS was formed late 1943, possessed only 60% of its officers and no armor other than a full compliment of Stugs and some Marders. The unit badly lacked transport and relied heavily on bicycle to move to the front. Airpower managed to destroy only 1 Stug en route but it was the inherent organizational weakness of the unit that gave it a poor showing. After all, the 101st AB was by no means at full strength itself one week after landing when Carentan fell.

No, I really stand by my belief that the game is biased in favor of giving more importance to Carentan than Cherbourg ahistorically.

Freeboy is right of course, that in hindsight Cherbourg was of little immediate use once captured. The Allies however anticipated this in the formulation of the Mullberry plan - and - in the scheduled operations for Patton's Third Army in Brittany to capture its ports once Cherbourg was taken and the Cotentin cleared.

The undeniable fact however, is that the Fuhrer's attention was on Cherbourg not Isigny, Carentan or Bayeux - the linkage towns. In the standard campaign scenario therefore, this imo needs to be more greatly reflected.

The same pretty much applies to the Allies' ability to hold the Ranville heights from Turn 1. Like I've noted, by quirk of the regimental level at 2km per hex, any British presence east of the Orne is very quickly subject to erradication by a highly active German AI. The strongpoint at Pegasus itelf really prevents this foothold from forming too unless the Allied player diverts naval fire from the beach to its hex.

The good thing about all this though, is that for me it lends for some great research. I personally agree with both of you - Carentan has always been the key to the battle. This however, is just not the way history and OKW saw it at the time.

Imagine it from the German POV: June 44 and Utah is invaded with troops at Omaha threatening the road hub at St. Lo. "We know the Allies need Cherbourg as it's the only port in view. But we're also awaiting the real invasion at Pas de Calais! Order: Hold Cherbourg at all costs! Fight to the death and suck in their reinforcements! They may not be able to attack Pas de Calais afterall if we bleed them right here."

Adam.

[Clipper1968]

ORIGINAL: Adam Parker

ORIGINAL: Ron
Well it stands to reason that initially, before the Allied landings, the Germans would consider Cherbourg, a major port, to be important and worth defending.

Well, this was more a by-product of the anti-Rommel sentiment too with Rundsted and Schweppenburg both prefering a static defence garrisoning every port from Brittany to Pas de Calais (the panzers of course held back in reserve). Once the invasion started, the Fuhrer then froze these units in place decreeing Cherbourg a "fortress" - as was his behavior by now on the Eastern Front. Retreat from a fortress of course was not an option.

Yes,you are completely right about that.Furthermore von Rundstedt,Geyr von Schweppenburg and even Guderian were underestimated the Allied tactics ability and refused to beleive that the Allied would have been able to defeat the Panzer Divisionen in a mobile battle...

[freeboy]

I guess we all know too much, like why did the great(sic) ferher order the Channel islands held?

No good reason.. want to handicap either side just give them more historical "musts..."
easy enouth to do with the editor.. want Caen to be a must for the Brits.. add lots of points for its capture and give Germans lots for its being held....

My point is there is alot of very good play, try also the 76 turn pbem version free landing.. I make two beaches and very greatly the paras rolls.... Several mistakes against one oponent but several oponents are reeling..... I would ot recomend the randum weather as mud turns are a real cluster flubs for the allies