This is a general discussion about this scenario (that has been "dubbed"
Normandy 1944, that I prepared for publication in The Squad Leader
Academy.  It appeared in Volume 2, No. 5 along with a version of the
scenario that is certainly playable, but due to the addition of an
SSR #3, may not be as balanced as the original.  In any event, should
anyone choose to try playing the scenario, I recommend using the double-
play victory conditions.  Doing so is a very good way of better assuring
balance between the two participants.

BTW:  This commentary was designed to give away very little in terms of
    tactics for better play of the scenario.  OTOH, some of these tactics
    are likely to surface during the discussion on the AGWAV!

------- Forwarded Message Follows -------

The scenario published here was prepared for the second convention effort of
the Springfield Gamers Association (Springfield, Illinois).  This group was
about four years old at the time and was continuing its efforts at keeping
Boardgaming alive and active in central Illinois.  A group of us had been
involved with playtesting ASL, and another member ran an ASL tournament at
the convention, but it was felt that a Squad Leader tournament (based only on
the original game's rules) would be good for the many local gamers who were
not doing ASL at the time.  This scenario was the result.

At most conventions, a typical gaming slot is three to four hours long, and
often participants do not wish to play only one specific game throughout the
convention.  This creates a decided preference for short scenarios that can
easily be played in the time frame allotted.  The convention was, at the
time, also a one-day event.  The goal was to create a challenging Scenario
that would effectively test the participant's knowledge and experience with
the Squad Leader system of rules in a situation that was likely to be
unfamiliar to most players.  When played face-to-face, this scenario can be
completed in one to one and a half hours.

The scenario was tested by the ASL playtest group about five times and played
six or eight times at the convention.  My recollection is that the only
change from the playtest process was the removal of a fifth German leader.
The double-play victory conditions were used at the convention, as that
method is best for testing the abilities of both players.  I must, however,
apologize for not remembering the name of the tournament winner.  Balance is
always a tough thing to measure, but the testing at the time discovered no
imbalancing tactics.

The scenario design derives its motivation from many descriptions of German
assaults that fell upon American headquarters elements only to find that they
were seriously outclassed, descriptions pulled from the "official" American
combat history of the War.  I expect that the observations owe much of their
basis to the particular time in the Wehrmacht's history, as German troops
were pulled together from any source to field some semblance of an OOB.  The
Americans, on the other hand did not face these exigencies, and would thus be
expected to have more combat strength attached to their headquarters.

The scenario presents both the offense and defense with some significant
problems to overcome.  Some of these are outlined, in brief below:

DEFENSE:  Any short scenario is going to be, above all else, a test of
defensive deployment abilities, this scenario is no different.  Four issues
will be of particular concern to the defense:

--   Good sight lines are not readily available, even though Board 4 is,
     ostensively the most open board.  The major reason for this is the
     presence of wheatfields, something that was purposefully not listed on
     the scenario card, although sufficient date information is provided.  In
     effect, the defender has a serious issue of where to start his forces!

--   There are no machine guns on the defense.  This is on purpose, as the
     Americans are forced to depend upon the forces that they have, primarily
     direct-fire artillery with a minor assist from squads and bazookas.

--   Which leads to the next difficulty, effective use of artillery in a
     direct-fire role is not often familiar to Squad Leader players.

--   And finally, as is often the case when dealing with American non-elite
     forces, the defense is best served if there is an understanding of how
     to maintain American unit cohesion in the face of enemy fire.

OFFENSE:  But the challenges are not all for the defender, a successful
assault has its own complexities to overcome.  Five are mentioned here:

--   Lack of time.  Simply put, four turns is not much time to complete a
     successful assault.  Particularly since it takes two or three movement
     phases for a squad to simply move across the width of board 4.

--   Combined advance and assault.  The attacker must be able to figure out
     both HOW he is to get his squads across the board and HOW to get them
     into position to actually initiate an effective assault.  Doing this
     well is much harder than preparing an assault from a deployed position.

--   Mixed force.  Although extremely valuable elite units, 8-3-8 squads are
     not particularly effective at projecting firepower across board 4 due to
     their limited range.  A successful assault will be aided, however, by
     the elite abilities of these squads.  This places a premium on the
     attacker's ability to deploy his two different types of squads to best
     assist his assault.

--   Limited leadership.  The Germans have a force that does not have an
     abundance of leaders.  A leader-assisted advance across board 4 will
     require movement by platoons, a serious limitation to deployment
     flexibility, a problem when hauling the HMG and MMG's around, as well as
     an increased risk of exposure to defensive fire.  A dispersed advance
     can be used, but a decision must be made as to the extent of dispersion.

--   And finally, the establishment of effective fire bases against direct
     artillery fire is quite difficult.  A rash attacker can easily find the
     battlefield littered with the same squads that he hoped would provide
     his fire support for the final assault!  The German player is provided
     with machine guns, but their deployment will attract much fire from the
     American artillery and no single hex can accommodate, or single leader
     direct, all three heavy weapons.

VICTORY CONDITIONS:  The single-play victory condition of six points is
demanding, but fewer points would not represent an effective rapid assault.
One of the questions facing the attacker will be how many infantry units can
he afford to allocate to the capture of those four victory-point buildings!
The six point victory requirement requires the elimination of both artillery
guns, or one gun and three of the four victory buildings; to win, a vigorous
and successful assault must be mounted!

The final twist to the scenario is the provision for the defender moving
first.  This is not often seen in Squad Leader, but it raises the question of
whether the defender can effectively improve his chances by either moving
outside of the initial set-up area or, alternatively, attempting to entrench
in some critical location (clearly a double-edged sword if the attacker can
sight the American artillery from an entrenchment hex). Both of these were
tried during playtesting, with mixed results.

Alan Yngve
October 5, 1994