CMBN 82nd Airborne Mini-Tournament

Both of these battles are going to go to the Germans in walkovers. The scenarios are not balanced at all. When the Germans have to advance over the causeway the Allie’s are extremely limited in setup are and can’t avoid being decimated by the opening barrage unless they hide on the back map edge. The Germans can advance armor while the Allies are being shelled and still have enough artillery to smoke the entire area enough to get almost entirely across the causeway with little damage. In the Allied attack scenario the frontage and depth of the Germans setup area is enough that only a token force needs to deploy forward in the bombardment zone to delay the Allies for the beginning of the scenario. The allies can’t deploy smoke to cross and even if they could the German front is wide enough to counter it. Then there is the all crack force defending. Both these scenarios are almost guaranteed German stomps. Sorry but neither have been the least bit enjoyable and we are only a few turns into the second one. I don’t feel either are balanced enough for competitive games.
 
Thank you, I appreciate the feedback. The possibility that the scenarios would be imbalanced was anticipated and that is why I set the competition up as a team effort with both sides able to play each scenario and finally taking into account the total result of the two. While the individual scenarios are apparently imbalanced, the team competition will still be fair.

That aside, I am surprised and glad you told me that the imbalance is excessive. I am indeed sorry that you did not enjoy the historical scenarios. The German troop quality 'error' was noted earlier and will be corrected in a future revision but I was unable to do so mid-tournament.
 
About the German troop quality error and revisions done today:
In the scenario Angriffe der Grenadiere, the German troop quality is set too high in the H2H version. The scenario was originally designed for single player U.S. vs German A.I. In that version it was necessary to increase the German troop quality to compensate for the poor performance of the A.I. in the scenario. When I revised the scenario for H2H play I overlooked this fact and forgot to reset the German troop quality to historical values.

Today I have made the following revisions to this scenario for more enjoyable play:
1. Both German and American deployment zones have been expanded to cover the whole of their sides of the Merderet River.
2. German off-map artillery has been reduced by one 105mm battery and reduced the ammunition to Limited. The limited value falls within historical possibilities since they had fired off a barrage a little earlier in the attack against Cauquigny. The numbers also fall within historical reasonableness. The number available to the 91. Luftlande Division is known, but the number and weight of shot used in this attack is not known. No records exist. The German player is still left with a generous amount of 4x 81mm, 1 x 120 mm and 1 x 105mm.
3. German off-map tubes may not fire smoke. Neither side fired any smoke rounds during this action nor is there any record of any being requested.
4. German off-map tubes must expend all of their ammunition in a pre-plotted shoot which must finish before the Germans may advance onto the causeway. Historically the German bombardment preceded the assault and no rounds were reported fired during the assault.
5. Experience, Motivation, Fitness and Leadership have been randomly appointed for both sides by selecting the "Typical" option for each unit in the Editor. This has resulted in what appears to be reasonable historical values. Exceptions were made for the overall commanders and for the crews of the three Beutepanzers. The latter were Green and had Low motivation compared to their commander in his Pz III who is a highly motivated veteran.
6. The victory location values have also been changed (again) to be the same for both sides.

The foregoing are in response to players on two occasions commenting that the scenario was effectively a German 'walkover'. Although I did not experience that during two prior play-tests, I can see the point.

As it stands now. The German player faces quite a challenge despite his generous artillery support and 8 HMGs. German troop quality is inferior to the American and German numbers are not theoretically adequate for an assault. Everything depends on the German player being able to utilize their supports adequately.

My personal hours of play demonstrate that tall bocage is extremely effective at absorbing all sorts of direct fire including HMG and HE from armour or guns. When I played as the American defender I placed most of my Yanks in the stone buildings and others in foxholes behind bocage. Although the German barrage dropped right on top of me, the largest buildings suffered little damage and my casualties were minimal. This was before the present reduction of German guns and ammunition.

My rationale for originally providing the Germans with a generous amount of artillery was to avoid a guaranteed historical outcome - i.e. certain German defeat. The amount provided was certainly historically possible.

Tomorrow I will have a look at Shaule's run.
 
Overall I don’t think balance is that far off. My off board mortars were timed correctly on that bridge. Helping out with this is infantry guns and on board mortars. It took some time and effort trying to find keyholed spots to that bridge for mortars and HMGs. Trying to avoid your mortars and direct fire from tanks. Those little openings in tall bocage is great for this.

Obviously the Crack lvl should be adjusted to Vet lvl. Though this hasn’t really played a role yet as we only had a small skirmish with infantry on the causeway so far.

I didn’t know the Allies aren’t allowed to use smoke, that’s a bummer. Though my off board stuff would still be hitting that bridge anyway. I’m of the opinion of letting both attackers use smoke in both battles. Rather than not allowing it. You could have in place some optional historical rules in briefing to let players decide this on their own.

Also saw in the Allied briefing the tanks aren’t allowed to cross the causeway until they get that first Obj. Again I think this could be another optional historical rule. Had I known about these Allied restrictions I would of agreed to forgo these rules.

Getting rid of sectional or restricted setup zones will help both players in both battles. Also give the Allied defender the same option to put troops on the causeway. Don’t force it on them. As the German defender it was optional and I chose to put troops out there to help delay the attacker. It’s working to keep the enemy in the kill zone.
 
NO SMOKING RULE.
I have always been of the mindset, that if players wish to make any changes to my scenarios to suit their personal preferences, views, understanding of history, or play-balance they are welcome to do so with the sole humble request that a note is included that theirs is an alternate version. Maybe even modify the title.

The No Smoking rule is the product of attempting to create an historical scenario. During all of the fighting over the La Fiere causeway from the 6th through the 9th of June, 1944, neither side ever employed any smoke. The American's called for it on the 9th (Shaule's Run scenario) but it failed to materialize. It is known that it wasn't available to the Americans before that time. It was available to the Americans only on the 9th but they were unable to have it ready to shoot at the time of the assault. The reasons for the German lack of smoke is unkown to me.

Obviously smoke would greatly improve the otherwise near suicidal chances of surviving an assault across the causeway. So if players mutually agree to play a 'non-historical' version of the scenario, they agree on a predetermined amount of smoke.
 
The causeway is a hell hole for any attacking force. The Germans did get a lot of mortars in the defense, but they came in pretty slowly, along with the reinforcements. US in the attack had a lot of heavy guns (105mm?) to pound the Germans with. In contrast it seems like the German attacking force had significantly less than the American attackers did.... though both scenarios seemingly have similar force ratios to each other. Yes, the German defenders were crack, but as stated, it's unwise to leave your troops forward. The same could be said for the US defense. Any troops deployed forward you can expect to be killed.

My result will show how difficult it is for the Germans to attack over the causeway. Had I used my HMG's to area fire the hedges indiscriminately from the get-go I probably would have had a better result. I don't believe in area firing though. It's not how the game is meant to be played.

The truth is that the causeway is a huge tactical dilemma. On top of not being able to directly run across the cobble is a massive issue with the game (Not Kandu's fault). So crossing the causeway takes unrealistically long.

I thought I was going to get over it quickly, but I found just how shitty the pathing in CMBN is with hedges. My forces got stuck on the causeway which wasn't good.

If you look at Shaul's run in the editor, both sides have similar amounts of land. But it seemed like the attacking germans have much less artillery than the attacking americans. The start zones are much less for the americans, but if your opponent looked at them and put fires on top of the rear start zones too, that would be pretty lame of them. If you were really unhappy with your start zones, you should know that pre-fired artillery comes in at 30 seconds. So you had ample time to retreat to a different hedge if you really wanted to.

When I played Shaul's run I had 90% of my forces deployed to the rear, and I brought them up only when necessary. The same should have happened for the american defender. Shady did it, avoiding my artillery barrage.

Also, the American kill zone is right where they start (The bridge) as opposed to it being the last part of the causeway (For the germans). I argue the Americans have MUCH better defensive positions than the German side does. The Germans can't even see over the first hedge. The Americans can use any part of the hill for their heavy assets and rain pain down on the bridge.

The germans didn't get TRP's or useful armor whatsoever.
 
Last edited:
Of course it's a historic scenario, I'm totally cool with that. We all signed up for this knowing that it was a historical scenario with built in house rules (I.e. no smoke).
Smoke is the only way I see the crossing being feasable in this game.

You could set artillery and run while it comes down too, but your time window is extremely short for the German attackers due to limited ammunition.

If I would edit the scenario, I would bump everyone down to at least "Green" given that the Airborne only have experienced cadre (More than likely but I could be wrong) while their grunts are likely fresh recruits.

The Germans similarly have no combat experience on record before this point.
 
If I understood correctly, someone mentioned that blind firing at the bocage is not the way that CM games are meant to be played. In the Designer's Notes of the scenario 'Busting the Bocage' the author quotes a reference about U.S. 29th infantry tactics doing just that - hosing down the bocage with MG fire. Many of you have probably also read of German armour blind firing into buildings.

In my scenarios there are no 'house rules' that prevent blind firing.
 
Kandu said:
If I understood correctly, someone mentioned that blind firing at the bocage is not the way that CM games are meant to be played. In the Designer's Notes of the scenario 'Busting the Bocage' the author quotes a reference about U.S. 29th infantry tactics doing just that - hosing down the bocage with MG fire. Many of you have probably also read of German armour blind firing into buildings.

In my scenarios there are no 'house rules' that prevent blind firing.
Click to expand...
I see your referring to Artkins comment I quoted below about area firing or blind firing. Which no offense makes no sense to me. Bottom line, weapons systems are very often used for suppressive or area denial fire. Why would you disallow yourself from using a game mechanic designed for the player to be used? The game is clearly meant to be played this way.

However, an argument can certainly be made that this gives the player an advantage when playing vs the AI. Since we all know the AI doesn’t do this. But obviously we’re talking head to head here.
Artkin said:
Had I used my HMG's to area fire the hedges indiscriminately from the get-go I probably would have had a better result. I don't believe in area firing though. It's not how the game is meant to be played.
Click to expand...
 
In particular instances it's fine. I'm not saying always. In the case of the causeway it makes sense to suppress the opposite side during an advance, this is one of the few times I'll allow myself to do it. I try to refrain from it typically though. I tried getting away without area firing the hedges since I thought the bombardment + subsequent infantry "rush" would have been enough.
 
Regarding the movement prohibition of the American armour in the scenario "Shaul's Run mini".
The two platoons of Able company, 746th Tank Battalion were on loan to the 82nd Airborne from the American 90th Infantry Division on the 9th of June 1944. Their purpose and indeed their orders were only to provide fire support, that is to shoot the GIR in, during the 3/325th assault across the La Fiere causeway. The 90th would not permit them to cross the causeway until a bridgehead was confirmed secure including the hamlet and church of Cauquigny, the very nearby hamlet of Le Bourg Neuf and as far inland as Le Motey. Indeed the armour was released late in the day, whereupon the lead tank entering the causeway was immediately immobilized by American daisy-chain anti-tank mines which had been overlooked during the rush across the causeway. This caused significant delay while the mines were picked up and the tank was pushed to the side. In effect, the American armour played no part on the west side of the Merderet until after all the objectives had been secured by the airborne troopers.

A caveat here. Some sources indicated that the troopers were driven back from Le Motey and others report that Rae's ad-hoc Able company overnighted in Le Motey. I can think of two possible explanations. There may have been two successive attacks against Le Motey or there was confusion between Le Motey and Les Helpiquets by some reporters owing to the fact that the scale of the maps used during the operation, do not distinguish, or barely so, between the two. Alternatively, the Americans may have bounced off Les Helpiquets (which sat on the critical crossroads leading to Amfreville) and bedded down in Le Motey (which provided good protection but sits on no important crossroads).
 
Last edited:
do u have an ideal of what the historical causalities were for the 2 battles....
 
Shady Side said:
do u have an ideal of what the historical causalities were for the 2 battles....
Click to expand...
The Germans actually made three attacks against the La Fiere manor on the 6th after first clearing the Americans out of Cauquigny. The first is covered by the scenario "Angriffe der Grenadiere", the second by "No Better Place to Die" and the third amounted to no more than a fighting patrol which made only a brief, fleeting appearance. German records of their casualties are unavailable for those three engagements are unknown. American records do not count the German infantry casualties but the German armor casualties can be deduced by assembling a number of personal accounts from the American paras. In the brief attack on Cauquigny, the Germans lost two French Renault R35 Beutepanzer and in the follow-up first attack against La Fiere they lost two more R35, one French Hotchkiss tank and one PzKw III - all of their supporting armor. That means that they lost a full platoon from the 100 Panzer Ersatz und Ausbildungs Abteilung.

American casualties are better reported even. I suspect that they may be available in detail in your government's archives. However, even the casual literature available to an amateur such as I, reveals that the bombardment preceding the second German attack reduced the paras to the point of requesting permission to withdraw. Casualties were very heavy from the German mortar fire. During the scenario Shaul's Run on the 9th, Captain Rae could put together on a single ad-hoc Able company of 1/507th paras who were still standing. I assume this means that all the others were either KIA or WIA.

It is my impression that only the American parachute infantry had the fortitude to stick it out as they were trained to drop-in and stay put until relieved regardless of cost, as compared to the regular infantry or even the glider infantry. With the exception of the Medal of Honor recipient Pvt Charles de Glopper, the 1/325th paniced and skedadelled back to their start line in their first (night) action on the 8/9th of June, that despite the fact that they very likely outnumbered the Germans locally - i.e. a full-strength concentrated battalion against a casualty reduced and twice defeated, German battalion strung out over Le Bourg Neuf, Cauquigny, the Grey Castle, Le Motey, l'Hameau Flaux and more.

It's been a while since I created the scenarios so I regret that I do not have a better answer for you at my finger tips. Here are some of the easier to access sources that I used.

Article: https://www.ausa.org/articles/all-american-lieutenants-82nd-airborne-normandy
Article: https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/article/airborne-at-la-fiere-slugfest-in-normandy/
Article: https://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/the-taking-of-la-fiere-bridge
Article: Panzer Ersatz und Ausbildungs Abteilung 100 in Normandy, Niels Henkemans, https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/mis...bildungs-abteilung-100-in-nor-t34939-s20.html

Book: Crookenden, Napier; Ch 5. The U.S. 82nd Abn. on D Day, 1976
Book: Marshall, Colonel S.L.A.; The Forcing Of The Merderet Causeway At La Fiere, France: An Action By The Third Battalion 325th Glider Infantry.
Book: Murphy, R.M.; No Better Place to Die: The Battle for La Fiere Bridge: Ste, Mere-Eglise, June 1944
Book: Nordyke, Phil; Put Us Down In Hell: The Combat History of the 508th Parachute Infantry Regiment in World War II.
Book: Zetterling, Niklas; Normandy 1944: German Military Organization, Combat Power and Organizational Effectiveness.

Maps French official: photographies aeriennes and plan IGN personnalisable at https://www.geoportail.gouv.fr/carte
Map by Capt. Rae: https://88693772.weebly.com/map-of-action-june-6-la-fiere-bridge.html
Map: https://admachina.wordpress.com/2012/07/05/battle-at-la-fiere-bridge-normandy/

Misc: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission_Boston

Orders of Battle of combatants: https://www.dday-overlord.com/en/battle-of-normandy/forces

Personal account by Lt. Col. Thomas Shanley: http://www.americandday.org/Veterans/Shanley_Thomas.html
Personal account by Capt. Dolan: https://www.thedropzone.org/europe/Normandy/dolan.html
Personal account by Lt. Broadaway: https://azadkinsiii.com/blog/34-no-better-place-to-die/
Personal account by Marcus Heim: https://www.thedropzone.org/europe/Normandy/heim.html
Personal accounts collection: https://www.ww2-airborne.us/division/82_memories.html
Personal account by Capt. Rae:

Unit Histories 82nd Abn: https://www.ww2-airborne.us/division/82_overview.html
Unit History 508 PIR: http://www.508pir.org/index.htm

Veteran bios: https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/seize-secure-battle-la-fiere
 
The following article goes a long way to answering your question. It begins with the casualties suffered during the initial paradrops, then the glider drops, and if you keep reading you will find good casualty info concerning the battles at La Fiere bridge and manor. Note the mention of 200 German killed on the causeway. Makes me wonder where the replacements came from for the subsequent battles.

www.realclearhistory.com

82nd Airborne's Stunning 1-Day KIA at Normandy

By today’s standards, the 82nd Airborne’s sacrifice in Normandy seems almost fantastical. When the elite division vaulted Nazi Germany’s Atlantikwall to launch the invasion of
www.realclearhistory.com www.realclearhistory.com
 
Here is another article that totals all casualties of the 82nd and 101st in the Cotentin.
I noted in the earlier article that 5% casualties was considered excessive by the US army planners. The airborne lost much more. And golly, when we play CMBN it is usually waaaaay more than that before pixeltroops cower or flee. There is a lack of overall unit morale or effectiveness calculation.

D-Day : Normandy 1944 - U.S. Airborne in Cotentin Peninsula and the IX Troop Carrier Command

D-day Normandy 44. The american paratroopers in the cotentin peninsula. The 101st and 82nd Airborne divisions and their fight in Normandy. paratroopers and glider troops. The IX Troop Carrier command: Organization and use on d-day.
www.6juin1944.com
 
thank u very much.. i will check the articles out in a little while.. i do agree with what u said about the airborne being units being the only ones that could have held out there... taking into account the extra training they received and just the mindset that it would take to volunteer for the job to start with... i assume it is safe to say that none of them volunteered to be a paratrooper thinking they might get a nice safe job behind the lines......

the 5 percent thing u told me does not surprise me about modern western armies...... i might not be remembering this correctly or if i am the source may have been wrong.... but i watched a video a while back showing some US army infantry training manuals with animated tactics...... i am thinking that it said when assaulting some positions up to 20 percent causalities would be acceptable...... how times have changed..... still though in anything like a near peer battle 5 percent is extremely low imho

times certainly have changed i was watching some Ukrainian stuff yesterday... it was 2 Ukrainians clearing a section of trench that had a dugout in it that 1 Russian throwing grenades out of.... the vid did not show him go down but 2 of the ukrainians eventually got a grenade close enough to him to at least stun him... and then rushed the entrance to close the deal with what had to be pointblank AK 74 fire...... the surroundings looked exactly like any world war 1 battlefield pic u have ever seen the narrow zigzagging trench with shell craters everywhere... the still standing but obviously dead trees with all the leaves blown off them..... a little over 100 years apart ... take the body armor the Ukrainian had away and give him a bolt action rifle and change the pic to black and white and it is the same..... until u remember your watching drone footage......next vid i watched was 1 drone trying to crash the other by flying into it...

thanks again for the info
 
I am grateful for all the feedback from the mini-tournament players. I have completed revising Angriffe der Grenadiere, Shaul's Run mini and Shaul's Run (huge) based on feedback received. It has moved the scenarios closer to balance, hopefully within the range of historical possibilities. Given that they are historical, balance will not be perfect and are best played as a pair in the manner that we have done. I have also given more careful consideration to the fact that H2H players may be inclined to study the scenario and their opponent's situation via the Editor and have therefore expanded the deployment possibilities and revised the artillery rules.

Cheers,
 
Last edited:
Reading through parts of Nordyke's "Put Us Down In Hell" again, I noted that Lt. Col. Shanley's men during their retreat from Picauville to Hill 30 came across two more Renault R35 Beutepaner as they passed Gueutteville and knocked one out. Again after 5 pm on the 9th, a 319th GIR Artillery battery finally came into action, shooing from the area of Chef-du-Pont onto Hill 30 / le Port Filiolet area and knocked out another R35 Beutepanze and caused another to withdraw. So my total count of Beutepanzern knocked out in my scenarios is 2 at Cauquigny, 3 at la Fiere, 1 at Geutteville and 1 at le Port Filiolet plus 1 PzKw III = 8. Not bad
 
Ok finished my battle vs @sspoom we agreed to a cease fire with 13 mins left. Not much changed since we last spoke here. He only pushed I think 2 more times with similar results. My on and off board mortars did all the work.

Here's our AAR:

sjnTlzz.jpg


End game layout:

kAWPj3N.jpg


In hindsight, this could of been a better play test if we restarted with your fixes. Unlimited setups zones with normal skills for the Germans. Though Im still convinced it would not of changed our result. This battle did use the rules in place, Allied no smoke and no tank crossing until troops cross. Advantage goes to Germans.

But if these rules arent used, then the favor would probably swing to the Allies. This battle would require another playtest without using rules to determine that. Simply put, with rules, Germans are favored. Without rules I figure/assume Allies are favored. A very tough balancing act here!

Possible German OOB change, could delete the last off board 81 mortars. But I would probably wait for a no rules playtest before chopping stuff.

Anyway great job overall @Kandu excellent map details.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom