And so the the main event of the week, The Battle for Normandy (BGG entry), from GMT. I originally had this one on pre-order, but canceled late as I wasn’t sure that it was one that I really wanted. (And let’s not discuss whether I needed it!) So, whilst this was certainly not my first choice for a monster game (that would have been OCS, EFS, The Devil’s Cauldron), it was a game I was interested in trying, to see how it went, and whether it was one that I’d want to pick up.
At my insistence we played the full invasion (what’s the point of a D-Day game if you don’t play the invasion?), so spent the Wednesday evening and the early part of Thursday morning getting through the landings. I played the Commonwealth forces, Eric the US, with Chuck and Doug the Germans, the former opposite me, although that seemed to change during the game, and covered some/most of the Omaha beach as well.
The Commonwealth landings went well, with 6th Airborne getting down without any losses at all, including capturing Pegasus Bridge. The beaches had been mostly cleared, with openings created on both Gold and Juno beaches, with Sword not far behind. However, over on the other side things weren’t going so well. The airborne landings were pretty disastrous, with a lot of units scattered all over the map, and around 25% losses. The beach landings went pretty badly as well, with Omaha being a struggle.
Chuck put little emphasis on pressuring 6th airborne, so they were able to build up and hold the flank. His main concern was with keeping me out of Caen, as I drove forward from Sword/Juno, so most of the reinforcements were fed into this area, managing to block my advance. I also pressed hard on the Juno/Gold axis, reaching as far as the main Caen/Bayeux highway. Around the middle of the 7th June turns we found that we’d been playing the supply rules all wrong, missing that supply lines can only go 1 hex over streams, which left me in a bad position with many units out of supply, and I spent the next turn or two reorganizing to get units back in supply. At this time we also learned more about Mandatory Attacks, which I’ll discuss in detail further below, which exacerbated my supply issues greatly.
By this time Eric had managed to get Omaha stabilized, and had started pressing forward. Utah had also been organized, and was starting to show some coherence.
The June 8th turns saw me use Pegasus Bridge and a gap in the German lines to sweep forward and actually get a unit into Caen from the east. However, this became the focus of Chuck’s attacks, and I was never able to get the die rolls required to fully support it, and Chuck managed to retake it on the 9th. In the mean time I’d been able to clear his unit that was screwing up my supply lines, and pressed on toward Bayeux, managing to take a hex of the city on the 9th PM turn, with the US Omaha forces right there as well. Chuck was unable to get the result that forced me to retreat, which left the Allies with 5VPs when we had to stop.
As a game session, I feel that my objectives were achieved. We never expected to get too far into the game, so getting as far as we did was about as expected. I mostly wanted to get a feel for the game mechanisms, and that was successfully achieved.
There’s a lot to like about BfN. The game focuses on trying to remain playable, and it does that well. There is a marked absence of markers, OoS being pretty much the only markers used, so the map is kept clean. The invasion itself is kept moderately simple, although there is some planning required in the order you land, and where, so it’s a good balance. For a low level game the supply rules are well thought out, and encourage you to keep your divisions together and not have them spread out all over France. Combat is simple, and the structure of the results table make the Combined Arms +/-1 DRM well worth looking for.
The air was is mostly abstracted. The Allies have a number of air points which they can allocate to Armed Recon, Ground Support, and Interdiction missions, the latter being split across the 5 maps in play. The German player has a number of AA points that he also allocates across the maps, which can negate the effects of the Interdiction missions, the net effect being the number of MPs lost, by each map, when a German unit moves. Simple, but very effective. We focused on the first two missions, but perhaps should have allocated more to Interdiction to slow up the reinforcements.
The Allies also have a limited amount of Combat Supply Points, that get refreshed slowly, and which limits the number of attacks that can be made. A single hex attacking without support costs no CSPs. Throw in some support (air, naval, or artillery) and it costs 1CSP. Have a multi-hex attack (with or without support) and it now costs 3CSPs. This introduces a certain tempo to the game, where the Allied player has to arrange his major attacks carefully, and any combat involving the use of CSPs that doesn’t get a result is a serious set back.
Overall, there was a lot there to like. So, what were the negative points?
For me there were three negatives: Mandatory Attacks (MAs); Mandatory Attacks; and (yep, you guessed it) Mandatory Attacks. The general concepts are fine: units in Clear, Farmland or Flooded/Marsh hexes must attack enemy stacks that are adjacent; and if any adjacent enemy stacks are attacked, then all adjacent enemy stacks must be attacked. The first part means that trying to hold weak terrain is really hard, and I think that’s a fair premise, as being caught in the open is not good. The second part means that enemy forces adjacent don’t sit idly by while you attack their buddies, also a fair premise. However, you can barrage adjacent stacks, which counts as the attack, so avoiding any possible negative result on the CRT. All good so far. Where it starts to break down is in the exceptions.
The first major exception is that units need not attack units across a stream or river, which is fair enough. The second is that units that cannot retreat away due to terrain and/or enemy ZoCs do not have to attack. This is major, as you want to work to put your opponent into a position where he has to attack or retreat, but if you succeed too well, he no longer has to retreat, and just stays there. Even worse, defenders in an OoS state have no impact on their defense strength, so you’re even more up against it. This means that you may be better off without that breakthrough and surrounding enemy units, as you now have to winkle them out. At least if they have a retreat path you can force them out and take the position.
The designer’s rational is that when they’re cut off they wouldn’t attack, as they wouldn’t be in a good position to do so, and would just dig in. Now, that’s not a bad starting point, but is a bit of a generalization. And why are other units not allowed to dig in? Take an infantry unit facing a strong armor unit? Would they really charge forward in a suicidal attack? Of course not. They’d dig in and request support, in exactly the same manner. In the game they’re forced to attack and take a few step losses (probably) as well as retreat. Now, I recognize that troops sitting in poor terrain would want to get off it and into something with more protection, but that doesn’t mean they’d perform suicide assaults to do it.
The next impact is that combats are not permitted at <1:4 odds. Combined with MAs, this means that, again, if it gets too bad for the defender, it actually works in his favor, as a unit that can’t perform the required MA must retreat. So a unit ‘attacking’ at <1:4 gets to retreat, and one at 1:4 will lose steps and (probably) have to retreat? Sorry, that’s just stoopid.
But it gets better. The one final rule hidden in the MA section (and not mentioned in the Movement nor Supply sections, where it should be) is that a unit in an OoS state is not permitted to move adjacent to an enemy unit in terrain that would require an MA. Again, not a bad premise, but what it does is prevent any sort of breakout by the OoS units. Think of a strong armor unit, with an attack strength of 10, cut off by a bunch of weeny 1-strength infantry units. If the infantry units are smart enough to not move adjacent, and ensure that it’s the clear MA terrain adjacent, then the armor units can’t do a thing about it. Not. A. Single. Thing. They’re stuck there with no way to fight their way out. That’s not just stoopid, that has moved into ludicrous territory.
This is all really sad, as there’s a lot to like here, and I think the game just needs some more development, as the problems with MA are easily solved. The first option is to simply do away with MAs altogether. They’re trying to introduce a good concept, but in so doing introduce too many issues. However, there’s a better way.
The system already uses steps to show the gradual friction of combat, but retreats are all or nothing, either the stack retreats, or it doesn’t, and if it can’t then it loses everything, all steps are eliminated. That’s a trifle brutal for a game at this level of details, so why not allow units to swap retreats for step loss(es)? Even better would be something along the lines of the Determined Defense used in GMT’s The Caucasus Campaign, where the result is determined by a die roll which dictates how much strength is lost in exchange for not retreating. This would solve the problem of MAs, as now they would be truly mandatory, but cut off defenders could be slowly ground down.
Partly this depends on what MAs are trying to show. Combat units in contact don’t just sit there doing nothing, but there is a consistent low level of activity going on. At the higher scales it doesn’t have much effect, but at the low levels depicted in BfN, especially with units having multiple steps, this could represent the general friction/attrition that goes on when in contact with the enemy.
Now, I’ve no idea whether this would work in practice, and I’m just theorizing. But I’m curious to see whether these would make the game better or worse. I don’t think variable retreat/losses would add much overhead, and it would certainly allow the defender to give up force for position, which is not a bad effect in my view.
Either way, I’m still conflicted by BfN, as there’s a lot to like. But those MA rules are just plain broken in my view.
It’s also worth mentioning that the designer’s support of the game has been exemplary. The questions we posted to BGG in our play were answered quickly (within 10 minutes on Thursday evening, I believe), and he has been very ready to discuss his design thoughts when asked. Can’t ask for more.