Comical and disturbing german beach defense

[Fallschirmjager]

I hate to bring this up. But I feel that it is a huge issue if the Allies can land 15 divisions in a week. That is pure fantasy. The Allies never had that much shipping at any point in the war and this could be a severe issue that I feel like no one has looked into yet.

[ratprince]

Joel - thanks so much for taking a look. I appreciate it. Good to hear it might be toned down a bit. The TOE didnt seem to be that hammered though as the AI. They seemed quite strong. I did notice though when they had reserves commited to a defense, I saw massive caualties before the battle even started. Is that representative of the interdiction? If so, that was working and pretty cool. I took the advice and moved TF back and started gettting freed up transports for more forces. Working ok now and breaking out. I guess the challenging level is helping them a bit because my invasions were much easier the past campaigns on normal. Thanks again

one last thing Joel, what about the instantly erected level one and two forts off the beaches thirty miles? That working as it should? Thats a lot of construction along a hundred mile front line fast...hehe...

Fallshirmjaeger - That may be the historical case. However, if you land with just four or five divisions versus the AI, you will, without a shred of doubt, be insta destroyed.

[Fallschirmjager]

ORIGINAL: mike mcmann


Fallshirmjaeger - That may be the historical case. However, if you land with just four or five divisions versus the AI, you will, without a shred of doubt, be insta destroyed.

Both issues need to be addressed. The Axis can converge on the beaches way too easily it seems and the Allies have almost 100% more amphibious shipping than they historically had.
In every invasion in the war, the Allies were never able to land double digit divisions in a week span.
But the Axis were never able to push them off a beachhead once landed. Salerno and Anzio were close run but eventually won through.
At the same time, Eisenhower and company would have given up an arm to be able to have the shipping capacity to land 15 divisions in a week. That was never possible.

I feel like WITP handled this really well.
Even in 1945 as the Allies I have to have low troop ship losses and comb every corner of the Pacific for the capacity to land 7 divisions in an invasion of Japan. That feels right and seems historically kosher based on what I read.

[Baelfiin]

How many divisions came ashore in Normandy from june 6 to june 13th?

Maybe someone has better info but what I can find:
US: 4th, 90th, 29th 1st, 2nd, 9th, 30th, 2nd Arm.
Canadian: 3rd
British 7th Arm, 50th, 51st, 3rd, 49th, 11th Arm, 15th.
Not including brigade size units.
Not Including the airborne.
16 divisions that I can see, but maybe someone has a better more exact list.

[ratprince]

From a quick google that is what I see too. Looks pretty historical actually in a week time frame.... cool

[wokelly]

Not to mention were there not channel storms upsetting the building up during the first week? 16 divisions despite that, they probably could have gotten more ashore in calm seas.

[Nico165b165]

Yes but there is a big difference between what could be sent on the beaches on d-day and what could be sent in a week.

Gameplay-wise it's important because only the units landing on the beaches are the only one to take the german counter-attack on the first turn. So both number must be right, not only the global number.

Historically, there was nothing bigger than the 6 division of Overlord. In the game, I remember a player talking about 8 TF x 2 divisions = 16 divisions on d-day. Maybe the allied could have done more than 6, but 16 ??

Then there is the balance between the landings and exploitation the WA can do, and the response the axis can do. Enough work for several patches probably.

[paullus99]

The Allies weren't able to exploit their landing to any great extent - look at how quickly the British beaches were hemmed in by German formations & ultimately how difficult it was for them to push out of the bocage.

There might be some fine-tuning necessary, but if you want an approximation of history, you still need to take into account the 1 week turns.

[RedLancer]

This is worth a scan as it details the planning behind D-Day and the major constraints on lift:  http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/USA-E-XChannel/index.html
 
If you decide not to launch Anvil-Dragoon then you have more toys to play with.  I stand by my earlier assertion - what did happen is not always the final arbiter on what might have happened or what is possible in game with a dose of hindsight.

[Baelfiin]

ORIGINAL: Nico165

Yes but there is a big difference between what could be sent on the beaches on d-day and what could be sent in a week.

Gameplay-wise it's important because only the units landing on the beaches are the only one to take the german counter-attack on the first turn. So both number must be right, not only the global number.

Historically, there was nothing bigger than the 6 division of Overlord. In the game, I remember a player talking about 8 TF x 2 divisions = 16 divisions on d-day. Maybe the allied could have done more than 6, but 16 ??

Then there is the balance between the landings and exploitation the WA can do, and the response the axis can do. Enough work for several patches probably.

It is a weekly turn for this game. With one day turns you could be a lot more precise on what the allies could land and with what the germans could respond with. Sure there were just 6 on June 6th, but that is just 1/7th of the time involved.

[Nico165b165]

Weekly turn, yes. But the difference between d-day and rest of the week exists.

Look at the d-day campaign starting position : the units prepping with the amphib tf are the 6 one who historically landed on d-day.

This demonstrate what the devs intend to represent with the invasion module : the scope is what happens in the first day of an invasion.

[HMSWarspite]

I think the issue is the capacity of the Amphib HQs. If the capacity were a bit more like 1 div ( well reinforced, so 4 regts including armour plus Div assets) this might be better. This means 5 Ampibs to do D day, rather than the current 3 doing it easily, and 5 doing twice as much. The follow up wouldn't be affected.

[ratprince]

If the capacity is tweaked downward, some change to the AI will have to be made as well. Any landing of four or so divisions will be annihilated instantly.

[MisterBoats]

It is a weekly turn for this game. With one day turns you could be a lot more precise on what the allies could land and with what the germans could respond with. Sure there were just 6 on June 6th, but that is just 1/7th of the time involved.

After a few GC's, that's my conclusion about it. I've been used to playing other Normandy simulations, comprised of daily or hourly turns. I had to completely reconfigure my thinking for WITW. They key is to maximize the violence post-landing. It feels like shoveling sand at the beach at times, but that's historically accurate. Sooner or later, the enemy (German) line will break. I understand how exasperated Eisenhower felt by July of '44.

[paullus99]

Perhaps if he didn't have Montgomery promising that every operation of his was going to be "the Breakout," he would have slept a little better.....though I heard that Irish driver of his helped with that.....lol

[MisterBoats]

True, but Monty took a flawed plan, turned it into a good one, and saw it through to completion. I can't blame him for occasional over confidence. The American commanders were just as bad about that.

[paullus99]

Monty's "overconfidence" was legendary and public....it was a close-run thing that he didn't get fired after Goodwood.

[HMSWarspite]

Guys, can we lay off the reflex Monty bashing. I am more am more than willing to have a debate on generalship, and Monty had his flaws, but for some reason many history forums end up doing it. If you have a serious point to make please do so, but what has he to do with the game mechanics in this thread?

There is probably an interesting social history study as to why he attracts so much more ire than generals who were equally flawed but maybe less prominent. Anyone for a discussion on Patton? Far more like Montgomery in ratio of military prowess to personal flaws than most people would admit. And don't start me on Bradley...

[MisterBoats]

I meant only to say that I understand how hard it must have been for Eisenhower to see the campaign stalled, week after week. I won't mention his name, but the English general made the victory possible.

It relates to the thread in that I have been shut down near the beaches several times. That's okay -- it's the way it was. A long battle of attrition follows the landings, and the length of that battle decides the future course of the campaign, to some extent. The rapid, massive reaction of the AI seems a bit much, but it's something to be studied and to be prepared for.

[JeffroK]

Ive had 2 runs at DDay.

One with a solid Allied push out of the Bocage but a new German line on the Seine, the other just about gout smashed back into the Channel!

Seems to be a sweet point where the balance swings either way.

IMVHO, the Axis overreact, no doubt about it being THE INVASION, no forces held back to counter FUSAG. Might make for a good GAME but its very hard to get a real WW2 1944 feel about it.